dublin – gac sunday afternoon sessions...dublin – gac sunday afternoon sessions enpage 3 of 137...

DUBLIN – GAC Sunday Afternoon Sessions EN

Note: The following is the output resulting from transcribing an audio file into a word/text document. Although the transcription is largely accurate, in some cases may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages and grammatical corrections. It is posted as an aid to the original audio file, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

DUBLIN – GAC Sunday Afternoon Sessions Sunday, October 18, 2015 – 14:00 to 18:00 IST ICANN54 | Dublin, Ireland

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: So thank you for coming to join us after the lunch break. Before

we go to the safeguards issue with the two co-leads, I would like

to alert your attention to a message that I sent to the GAC this

morning which is about securing our ACIG secretariat support in

a sustainable way for the near and hopefully also further future.

As you may recall, we have had an initial discussion on this in

Buenos Aires and the situation is the following: That we think

we all -- or I assume that we all appreciate the service that we

get and we also appreciate the money that has been given by

the three donor countries, has been given so far for three to five

years, depending upon the commitments by the donors, to fund

that secretariat. I would like to recall the announcement made

by the donors in Buenos Aires that they are willing to continue to

contribute to the funding under the condition that others join

the donors' group as well, i.e., that the burden is spread on more

shoulders than for the initial period. That is, again, stated in

that email, and it's an invitation to you all to think about A.,

whether you appreciate the services that we are receiving,

whether you would like this to continue, and B., whether you


of 137

and your administration would be in a position to join the group

of donors in the near future. And the attached document is a

first contribution to trying to help us assess the services. It's a

paper that shows -- gives some information about what the

secretariat has been performing, has been asked to do, and

serves as a first basis to help you assess this.

I propose, because this is a very important issue -- that we may

use the free slot that we have on Wednesday, Wednesday

because all of us are still here on Wednesday, to discuss the

issue of sustainably securing the funding for our secretariat in

that slot on Wednesday. If you agree, we would modify -- or fill

that gap, that blank spot in our agenda accordingly. We may not

use the full 30 minutes, but I think it's essential that we start

discussing this now. Also taking into account that the budget

procedures for next year for our governments are probably

about to start in many -- in many of our administrations. So

please, have a look at this issue and we will discuss this on --

start discussing this on Wednesday.

With this information, I would like to hand over the floor now to

the two co-leads on the agenda item that was shifted from the

first day to now which is the safeguards. I don't know who of the

two of you would like to begin. Okay. The United States. Thank

you.


of 137

UNITED STATES: Thank you, Chair. Just to give you a brief overview, and with

apologies to my colleague from the E.U. Commission. We

actually haven't quite had the chance to coordinate fully, so

we're very open to any constructive edits, of course. And so

what we're proposing for the GAC's consideration is a message

to the ICANN board to the effect that we're at a certain point in

time now, two and a half years, almost three years since we

issued our first -- the famous Beijing communique with the new

gTLD GAC safeguard advice, and we've had many, many

exchanges, very constructive exchanges between the GAC and

the NGPC and we -- based on where we think we are today, we

went back to the BA communique and decided that it might

make sense to -- for Dublin to kind of be a little more direct,

perhaps, and to close out where we think we are. And so our

first proposal would be that we would actually seek very formal

clarification, I guess, from the NGPC, from the board, and that

they should hopefully create a very straightforward, a very clear

scorecard, if you will. Those items in the GAC's advice, the

progressive provision of advice that we have been delivering

now since 2013. And they give us a scorecard that indicates

rather clearly what elements of GAC advice have been

implemented, what remains a work in progress, and what has

not been accepted for implementation. So I think as we all


of 137

know, the GAC has consistently advocated that for strings

representing highly-regulated sectors, we propose that they

implement validation and verification measures, and we've

been told over time that the NGPC has found that that was not

advice they could implement.

So we would reiterate our request that the NGPC create a list of

commended Public Interest Commitment examples related to

the verification and validation of credentials for domains in

highly-regulated sectors, and I'm thinking about .BANK,

.PHARMACY. There are any number where we can think of that

the registry operators themselves voluntarily developed Public

Interest Commitments that in fact required the validation and

verification of credentials. So we think that would help if we

could have a list. We could then monitor more carefully, and

ICANN could monitor more carefully, the issue of whether these

safeguards should be incorporated into future rounds of new

gTLDs. So this is intended to also help guide the GAC as it

contemplates its potential advice on a potential next round of

new gTLDs.

We also think it might be useful -- and this is again picking up

from the Buenos Aires communique -- there are several, you

know, current and upcoming reviews of the new gTLD program,

and we think it might be useful for the GAC to urge the board to

develop a harmonized methodology for reporting to the


of 137

community the levels of abusive conduct. So if you will recall in

our overarching safeguards from Beijing we listed things like

malware, botnets, phishing, pharming, piracy, trademark or

copyright infringement, counterfeiting, fraudulent or deceptive

practices, or other illegal conduct. And we think it would be

useful if they could develop a harmonized methodology for

reporting on these -- on these incidents of abuse, then that

would again help us to look to the future to guide whether it's

contract compliance efforts and to certainly guide the

development of whatever safeguards we think we might need

for the future. So that's kind of the nitty-gritty nuts and bolts,

and I would look to my E.U. Commission colleague to make sure

that we haven't left anything out or included something that

was not warranted. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, United States. E.U. Commission.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Yes, thank you very much. Well, of course, I wholeheartedly

concur with what United States has said with respect to these

detailed aspects on verification and validation, reporting

abusive conduct, identifying exactly what the board has done,

where, and how and under what circumstances and providing a

clear scoreboard. I think all of those are, of course, extremely


of 137

useful and also in terms of how we go forward in the future. But

there's one other element that I wanted to add and that relates

to the PICs, the Public Interest -- oh dear, now I've forgotten

what PIC stands for. What is it? Public Interest Commitment, of

course. How could I forget? Public Interest Commitment. That

is another aspect where we have discussed also with the

business community, the ALAC and some others, and in the

context of the NGPC how we could better apply those Public

Interest Commitments and make sure that they -- good practices

and best practices that have been applied in some of the highly-

regulated strings could be expanded and applied in others. And

those apply also to existing cases. Not -- and this current round

of gTLDs. And there has been a letter that's been sent by Akram

Atallah to the ALAC and the GNSO suggesting that a special

committee which exists already amongst the two be used to

address and review the existing PICs. And we think that that's

also a very good idea to try to move forward in practical terms

the application and use of some of these best practices. So I just

wanted to add that aspect too.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. U.S. again.


of 137

UNITED STATES: Thank you, Chair. And thank you, E.U. Commission. I certainly

appreciate you having brought that to our attention. We are

taking a look at that particular -- it's a very specific proposal that

is currently on the table. And what I can say -- and we are more

than happy to collaborate with the E.U. Commission in drafting

some proposed text for the communique for our colleagues in

the room to look at and be comfortable with -- certainly like the

idea, the concept of shining a spotlight, if you will, on the PICs.

You know, are they meeting -- those that have been filed, are

they meeting the terms of the PICs themselves in practice? You

know, how are they being implemented in practice? Do some

fall short? Are some exceeding expectation? We think that's an

excellent suggestion, and fully endorse that. The specifics of

whatever methodology I think we'd like to reserve a bit on

because quite candidly there may be a preliminary step that

could be undertaken by ICANN staff as an initial first step. They

have direct access to every single one of these contracts and

direct access to all of the PICs whereas it's rather difficult for all

of us to go wading through that material. So it might be useful

to make that a request.

So with your indulgence, E.U. Commission, I'd probably want to

reserve on the particular proposal, but certainly endorse the

concept of shining a spotlight and making sure we can analyze


of 137

and properly assess how these PICs are being implemented.

Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank. And before I give the floor to the U.K., just for your

information, right now there's a meeting of the NGPC going on

this afternoon. It will start in a few minutes. And the issue of the

GAC advice is on the agenda. And I'm not sure when we will hear

about this, but I think the proposal put forward by the two of

you seems reasonable. United Kingdom.

UNITED KINGDOM: Thank you, Chair. I was just going to add that the idea of a

review committee sounds a good one and I'm like the U.S.,

unsided on it really in terms of detail and I have not had enough

time, of course, to look at it. But I think that applies to the whole

committee. So perhaps you could communicate a request for

the substance of the exchange with the ALAC and that was

referred to by the European Commission, be communicated to

yourself and then we could look at it as -- as the GAC. Can I

suggest that perhaps as one item on the way forward? Thank

you.


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Other comments or questions? That does not seem

to be the case. I assume we have a session also with the ALAC in

our program or don't we this time? So this is something I think

the initiative comes, if I'm rightly informed, from the ALAC. We

can ask them. But we can also ask the GNSO later today, if we

want. But -- so to seek for clarification on this issue before we go

to the drafting of the communique, that may be useful as a piece

of information.

If there are no more requests for taking the floor, I would assume

this is a support for asking the co-leads to come up with a draft

text for the communique based on the alliance that they have

outlined right now, and then we would move on to our

discussion on what is it accountability, I think, right? What is

that?

Okay. So we are back in our -- one of the key issues, which is the

-- our work, our deliberations, on the proposals on

accountability. We have been asked -- the secretariat has been

asked to provide for the relevant text regarding the discussion

on stress test 18. You have them in -- distributed on hard copies.

You have received emails with links and texts in your mailboxes,

so we hope that serves the purpose. We have a little bit less

than an hour, actually 45 minutes, because we can't delay the

next session with the GNSO. I suggest that we would start using

a time going into the other issues then stress test 18 first to see


of 137

where we are on the other issues. So let's go back to that

preliminary list that we have looked at yesterday. Trying to

make my computer obey me but it's difficult. It seems to be

resisting. Maybe we can put that list up on the screen again.

These four bullet points that we had yesterday. And see what

we may have to say on these. I think we can already start with

the first one, which is I think the role of the GAC in the future

empowered community mechanism including -- including a

community forum. It may be good to get a quick overview on

where the discussion currently stands by somebody -- by a GAC

member who has been following that discussion here, including

here in Dublin on Friday and Saturday. So I don't know, I haven't

prepped anybody but maybe there's a volunteer who's quickly

trying to give us an introduction on where we stand with this

community empowerment mechanisms in one or two minutes

and then seek for views from the GAC on whether we think this is

fine or there's something we should express concerns or so on

and so forth. I see Iran is volunteering, so please, Kavouss, give

us a short update on the key elements of the current discussion.

Thank you very much.

IRAN: Thank you. Good afternoon to everybody. The three steps of

the process for every power means petition, community forum,

and decision-making is currently exists has not been modified.


of 137

So community forum was reconsidered as a useful tools in order

to have all SO and ACs plus any other interested party, including

observer, to attend that. And that is a forum. It's not the

decision-making. It's just a forum to further analyze the

situation in order to prepare the people for decision-making.

However, there has been some element added to that. How the

discussions would be carried out and how the issue will be

moved to the next step which is decision-making, but that issue

is on the preliminary discussion yet so I don't want to at this

stage to pursue that. But the issue that you raised, that the role

of the GAC in the forum has not been formally discussed in

CCWG apart from what is in the mailing list of the GAC, I think it

was sufficiently short. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you very much, Kavouss. Questions and comments on

this issue. Yes, United Kingdom.

UNITED KINGDOM: Yes, thank you, Chair. The CCWG broke up into subgroups on

yesterday morning -- yeah, yesterday morning. And that was a

very useful device for getting into the sort of nitty-gritty of how

decisions are going to be made and the escalation of a

complaint all the way up to a decision on a mechanism to

reverse, for example, the Board decision on the budget or -- or


of 137

removal of a board member or whatever the specific issue and

mechanism that befits it might be.

So I was encouraged by the examination of the process for

leading up to a decision allowing time for the community,

including the GAC, to examine an issue and resolve it before

actually getting to the stage of taking a decision on whether to

implement one of the community empowerment mechanisms.

So just to add a little to what Iran has recounted very accurately,

just to add a little to that, after an initial tabling of an issue by an

SO or an AC, there would then be a kind of precall that would --

it's called a precall, a teleconference, a very lightweight and

inexpensive step whereby the SOs and ACs are alerted to the

issue. And then -- and I think also the Board would be alerted, of

course, at that stage as well in a more formal way, perhaps.

And then that provides a first opportunity to somebody to say,

actually, there's a solution to this. So we don't need to go

beyond that first initial step. And that allows a way out at an

early stage before going to a much more intensive examination

of the issue at the community forum, which would be the next

step after the precall. So the precall step is, basically, to decide

should this go forward to the community forum and also allows

a way out, if it's identified at that stage that there's no need to

go down the track of a community empowerment mechanism.


of 137

And this fits with the U.K.'s expectation here that this whole

process is not about inevitably leading to a decision to enact one

of these mechanisms. The process should allow real opportunity

for all the constituencies within ICANN and for the GAC in some

predictable formal way to be part of that, the GAC providing

advice primarily from the public interest perspective on the

issue with a view to identifying, you know, a way to resolve it

without going down, ultimately, a very extreme route of

reversing a board decision by one of the mechanisms.

And, likewise, the community forum itself, I think, is important

for us to focus on as the opportunity for governments to provide

fully developed advice on the issue at hand. So we need

sufficient time as a committee to be able to formulate such

advice and agree it.

And the second proposal talked -- was a very short timeline, 15

days and so on. From the U.K. position as the participant in the

working group, I've advocated, well, we need more time in that -

- at that stage to be able to come up, first of all, individually as

members of the GAC a national position and then to work with

colleagues in the GAC in order to formulate a comprehensive

GAC view, a consensus position, if you like.

So I was very encouraged that there was this approach to the

kind of problem areas that the CCWG proposal envisages that


of 137

should be subject to community empowerment mechanisms,

allowing for a lot of opportunity bottoming out an issue,

identifying ways out, some informal exchanges with the Board,

for example, that could actually lead to resolution without going

for the buttons that would press for a decision to be taken

whether by voting or whatever the modalities are ultimately

agreed for the empowerment mechanisms. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, U.K. I think, just for the sake of clarification, in

particular, for those who haven't been able to follow this in

detail, the concept of voting seats as it was -- has been in the

first and second proposal has now been shifted to a more

escalation step oriented escalation path where there is a

threshold of SOs and ACs that needs to support going to the next

step.

Is that the right way to phrase that development of the

proposals? So for those who are not -- haven't been part of this,

that they can fully understand what -- where we are with the

issue of voting. That was a difficult issue for the GAC. So maybe

if somebody -- Iran could explain this in more detail for a second.

Thank you.


of 137

IRAN: Thank you, Chairman. I think we need to distinguish between

what U.K. mentioned about this precall and process and the

issue of voting or other approaches in order to have a

mechanism be enforced.

We put this issue to the CCWG that the preference would be not

to go to the voting in any aspects but go to the consensus

building according to the procedures in force in every SO and

AC.

So that is something is covered everything in order to avoid

voting. And that would enforce the position of GAC that

currently has an advisory capacity and not be obliged to pop in

or pop out of the voting issue in order to retain the position that

always GAC would be in a position to provide advice.

So that should not be mixed up with this following issue. So

perhaps you take it separately. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you very much for this. U.K.

UNITED KINGDOM: Yes, thanks. I think your question was whether the CCWG has

actually resolved to move away from voting. Is that right? I

don't think they've done that yet. I think we'll be jumping the


of 137

gun to assume that. I mean, there's a lot of further

consultations. And thanks.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay. I ask this question because I'm trying to find out whether

we, as a GAC, based on that consensus input that we agreed on

that we delivered in September on our potential role or our

potential views on this empowerment structure, whether this is

going in a direction which we would all support. Is there

agreement among the GAC that this is a direction that the

discussion is taking that is in our -- that we think is the right one?

And, if not, what would be problematic? But, from what I hear,

there's general support of how this aspect of the proposal is

developing. Do I get this right? I'd like to -- I see people

nodding. So there seems to be satisfaction with the direction

that this aspect of the work is taking.

Any comments? Any more comments on these aspects? I think,

if this is the case, then this is good to know that GAC members

participating seem to be comfortable with the direction this is

taking.

Any comments on the community, more comments or questions

on the community empowerment mechanism including the

community forum where this idea stands? Now maybe

somebody could quickly explain in one minute what the role and


of 137

the idea of this community forum is, as Kavouss has said, that

this is two different things. One is the empowerment

mechanism, and the other is the forum. Maybe that would be

helpful for everybody, all of us to understand this a little bit.

Kavouss, yes, please. And then U.K.

KAVOUSS ARASTEH: Thank you, Chairman. The idea of the community forum was

first discussed before going the decision making, which U.K.

clearly mentioned that perhaps we should be more or less a last

resort, it is better that all SO and AC together in a consultative

manner discuss the issue to be aware of the detail of the matter

in order to be prepared to have some sort of decision making.

Decision making is not necessarily voting is deciding on the

matter, some people by voting, some people by consensus.

Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize not contradicting what

U.K. says, we push for the mood to go to the consensus building.

This is something that -- so following is just to share information

among all SOs and ACs, even if a petition coming from a

particular SO or particular ACs or two SO and ACs in some cases

like removal of the entire board, to make the issue carefully and

clearly defined, analyzed, and exchanged the views among the

people to prepare them for the next step, if necessary. If not, we

may not need to pursue that. So that was the idea of the forum.

Thank you.


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. I have U.K. and then Switzerland.

UNITED KINGDOM: Thank you, yes. That's pretty much the concept. And to sort of

visualize it, perhaps in addition to what Iran has said, the

expectation it might be a one-day physical meeting which could

be an adjunct to one of the three ICANN meetings held annually,

there would be a participation threshold, at least half of the SOs

and ACs would be present, I think, was one discussion for the

threshold. And this is -- the precall I mentioned earlier was very

much an alert to the issue. And then perhaps an opportunity for

somebody to say we are aware of this issue. There is a solution

being developed in this corner of ICANN. But in the community

forum it's a much more in-depth examination of the issues. And

the SOs and ACs would be able to provide their views on the

issue and then, subsequent to that, there would be a basis

perhaps to taking a decision on one of the empowerment

mechanisms or to say there was a solution already devised. We

don't need to go down that step. So it's a kind of critical point.

Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, U.K. Switzerland.


of 137

SWITZERLAND: Thank you, Chair. Just to complement what my colleagues from

the U.K. and Iran were informing this committee, I think that we

made in the CCWG good progress in going down the path of an

escalation system that strives for consensus and that avoids

dangers of capture by parts or fractions of the community. With

a combination of requirements of a large degree of support for

any community power exercise and the absence of objections. I

think perhaps this must be further fleshed out.

But, in principle, as I sense the room, there was a large

consensus or traction or coalescence as it is expressed in the

CCWG.

As to the community forum, this is a step within this escalation,

this decision-making process by consensus. And I think it's still

some work in progress. And we have to make sure that the

process of the community forum or the decision-making process

as a whole permits for an inclusive, open, and transparent

framework where all interested parties, SOs and ACs can feed in

their advice, their recommendations. And there is opportunity

for a real deliberation among all interested parties in order to

strive for consensus as much as possible. Thank you.


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Switzerland. I hope and think that these comments

have explained the essence and the core of where we are for the

time being with these latest developments on the structure of

the community empowerment mechanism. And I would assume

or take from absenting interventions that express general

concerns with the direction that this is taking that we support

the direction that this is taking. Whatever we do with this

information, but it's something positive that I think we should

retain.

Now I'd like to, given the time, I'd like to maybe go to the last

bullet point on that list. It is a question. It is a question that has

been discussed in the CCWG itself brought up by different

stakeholders. And, as I said yesterday, also the process is in the

middle of drafting these bylaws. And I just wanted to hear some

comments from GAC members on whether you think that this is

again going in the right direction or raises concerns for you to

get a sense of whether this is an issue that the GAC should look

into very closely or that we are rather comfortable with to get a

sense on this. So who wants to start with this point? Yes. Iran,

please.

IRAN: Thank you, Chairman.


of 137

Perhaps we should put it in a slightly different way. We should

not limit it, the participations of the GAC on the public policy

issues. If the bylaw is going to be redrafted, which is going to be

done by CCWG and the legal counsel and the legal group of the

ICANN, I think GAC should be interested in everything because

the entire bylaw applies to the activities of GAC. So I encourage

that we, as I mentioned the other day, actively participate in

that. However, in particular, the earlier is that touches the

public policy issues, which is one of the main tasks of the

governments. We should be there. So I don't think it is a narrow

role or narrow participation. It is a participation in that. And

that is important. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Iran. We may not be talking about the same thing.

The point that I propose to bring up is actually the new

formulation of the mission and core values of ICANN's mandate

where ICANN's mandate is a very narrow -- it's not the narrow

participation. It's the very narrow definition of ICANN's mandate

as to the technical functioning of the DNS and the IP address

system and whether this -- the discussion the way I at least

perceived it in the CCWG was whether this narrow mandate was

in an asterisk there was a text that ICANN would not go into

regulation of content and things like this. That was agreed, I

think, by everybody in the CCWG.


of 137

But then there was an asterisk that said or was supposed to say

that this shouldn't preempt ICANN from implementing

contractual obligations and so on on issues like consumer

protection and so on and so forth.

So I wanted to just highlight this discussion and ask you whether

you think that this, again, is going in the right direction or that

you feel comfortable with the way it's been discussed in the

CCWG or whether you think there's a concern here that

something is -- that GAC members would need to somehow

bring in concerns into the discussion. That was the question.

Yes, France and U.K. France, please.

FRANCE: I would like to understand two or three elements. If we have a

narrow scope or a narrow mandate for ICANN, what will happen

with freedom of speech? Because I believe that that is quite a

legitimate concern. I would like to have some confirmation that

the control of these facts will be firm. I would like to make sure

that we agree on what freedom of expression or of speech

means. Speaking about domain name means getting involved

with a freedom of expression? I'm not sure.


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: It's much more fundamental. I think there's -- the feeling is that

-- and this is nothing new -- that ICANN has, basically, a technical

mandate with regard to the management of the DNS and that it

should stick to that technical mandate.

And that is reworded in a new proposed bylaw, which is -- the

mission which is .1. And I'm trying to find it, actually, in my

documents.

And there was been a discussion in the CCWG what this narrow

definition of the mandate would allow and would not allow.

Everybody agreed that this should not allow content regulation

and other things that are not within -- agreed not within the

mandate of ICANN. But the question is where is the limit to --

nobody dares to call it regulation, so I call it regulation either.

But aspects that relate to or may follow on the DNS, like

consumer protection issues and other issues.

But the U.K. wanted to join, and then I have Indonesia as well.

UNITED KINGDOM: Yes. Thank you, Chair. This certainly was an issue that we

commented on in our response to the second draft of the

mission as described in -- I think it was paragraph 187. I'm

looking furiously at my notes. But, anyway, we certainly took

the view that it was too narrow to focus only on the technical


of 137

mission because of all the range of issues that, for example, the

GAC covers in respect to the public interest, competition issues,

child protection, rights, opportunities, and ensuring diversity,

inclusiveness and so on. I mean, these were wide -- these issues

did not seem to fit into the proposal as drafted.

As to the state of play at the moment, in answer more directly to

your question, to be honest, I'm not sure. But I think it was well

recognized by the CCWG that this was an issue that needed to be

examined as to whether it was too narrow. And the public

interest issues, in particular, were not sufficiently taken into

account in the drafting. So I defer to colleagues who may know

more than I. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. We have Indonesia and then Switzerland.

INDONESIA: Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Thomas.

About the mandate of the -- our GAC and the countries -- sorry, if

I get Tom and Thomas mixed.


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Don't worry. Some friends call me Thomas and some call me

Tom. And I've got 10 other nicknames because there's so many

Thomases around. So don't bother. Whatever.

INDONESIA: So, regarding the narrow mandate or wide mandate, what we

discussed in recess is a very simple thing. The ICT has been

developing so fast, and it seems that from time to time it will be

developing faster and faster. Today we are talking about

content applications. Tomorrow we are talking about high

digital platforms and so on and so on. Last week we discussed

about digital narcotics, I mean things that we never heard

before. Suddenly you have digital narcotics sold everywhere.

So in the case -- in this situation where ICT application, content

access, and so on developing so fast, sometimes unpredictable,

then the government has to, in some cases, has to intervene in a

situation which is arise suddenly.

So in this case, although the mandate of the GAC will be

arranged in the bylaws and so on, there has to be a possibilities

for the countries to interfere in the case where there ar e some

development or unpredicted developments that we face, we are

facing. And that may differ from country to country.


of 137

Now, with these possibilities, the country will then stick to have

together in the ICANN operations as we have today. One world,

one Internet. If we don't have the mandate and we have

problems, we don't want to end up with one world, many

Internets. That's not what we want. We want one world and one

Internet. That is the logo of ICANN, and we want to keep it that

way. But in this case the mandate is very important. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you very much, Indonesia. Switzerland?

SWITZERLAND: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to clarify or to inform this

committee that, in fact, the mission statement which is being

refined or changed in this exercise of the CCWG has given rise to

some comments amongst others from the business

constituency, if I remember well, and the ALAC, which had some

concern that the -- the attempt to narrow too much down the

mission statement could be, in fact, interpreted or construed by

some to understand that contractual enforcement could be

questioned or that also the application of public interest

commitments could be questioned.

So, after the discussion had there, the rapporteur of the second

working party of the CCWG, Miss Becky Burr, has circulated a


of 137

draft with some ideas on how to tackle these comments. But I

suppose this is still very much a work in progress. And perhaps

we should monitor it to make sure that there's no danger to

construe that public interest commitments and safeguards are

outside the mission within the new bylaws. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Switzerland.

So what I read so far is that, A, this is work in progress; B, so far

that this is of importance to the GAC from a public interest or

public policy point of view and that we should continue to have

a look at how this discussion is going. But there's no reason for

the time being for concern that the discussion is going in a

wrong direction. Is that what I gather from what I heard? Is that

correct? But we need to keep having an eye on it and participate

in the discussion.

I see people nodding. In case somebody has a further question

on this, of course, you can also directly contact any of us who

participate -- who have the luck to have the resources to

participate in detail in these very interesting discussions in the

CCWG.

But I would then use -- try and use the last 15 minutes to take on

the last point or the third or the fourth, if we calculate the --


of 137

include the discussion on stress test 18 from yesterday, which is

the question of the notion of private sector-led versus

multistakeholder. We have already heard some allusions to this

yesterday. And it seems that there is a disagreement in the GAC

on whether or not to insist on -- or to propose or insist on

changing the traditional formulation of private sector leadership

and rooted in the private sector, whatever the concrete

formulations may be, through a more, let's say, business

influence and international inference, the notion of

multistakeholderism, that is used in more and more other fora.

So I would like to give you the chance to quickly react on this

issue so that we see where we are within the GAC. But also,

please, inform those who have been participating in the CCWG

what the rest of the community's position is or to what extent

these positions are defined or not defined. And yeah. The floor

is yours for those who have been actively participating on this

issue. I have Iran and the Netherlands to begin with. Thank you.

IRAN: Thank you, Thomas. I think the rest of the community, they

don't agree with the GAC, that we should not mention this

leadership of the private sector. They insist and even says that

why we have to change what we're doing and do the last 17 to

20 years. Some people, they saying that it should be equality,


of 137

there should be no subordination of anybody, but the rest of the

community, frankly speaking, they want to maintain this private

sector rooted or private sector leadership. Just I'm quoting

what they said. That doesn't mean that we are in favor or not,

but that is what they said.

But just I would like to add, compared to other issue, this is not

very critical issue. Whether you say privately rooted or not

privately rooted, the thing is going on. We have many other

important issue to deal with, right? Stress test 18 or community

mechanisms and so on and so forth. So I just give it to you to

handle the matter. It is not critical as such. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you very much, Kavouss, for this statement. The

Netherlands.

NETHERLANDS: Yeah, thank you, Chair. When it was raised yesterday I thought it

was a large objection for -- against this. Now I hear from

Kavouss that, of course they have thought about it but it's not a

critical thing. And I think I was -- what I would like to give my

view -- I would like to give my view on it and seeing that the

wording may be not completely accurate because I think it's not

private sector in the lead, it's more a company or a corporation


of 137

which is governed by self-regulation and self-organization with

many stakeholders. That it would be more appropriate, but I

would not insist in changing this. I think it is a kind of

simplification, the way it is stated now. It could have some

amelioration, but I don't have so hard feelings about the current

wording. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Netherlands. Anybody else? Brazil and then the U.K.

BRAZIL: Yes. Thank you, Chair. My assessment of the discussion

concerning this topic is slightly a bit -- slightly different from

what our representative from Iran has mentioned. I don't see

that the community or members or participants in the CCWG,

apart from the GAC, are totally in favor of keeping the term

"private sector led." Actually there were some participants,

including board members, that have indicated their support for

replacing the term "private sector led" to the term

"multistakeholder" which would be more widely accepted.

We as a condition of the participant in the CCWG, we have

expressed our support for replacing that term, considering that

the private sector led first, it is an outdated, let's say, term. It

was introduced the end of the '90s there, so it's something that


of 137

we have evolved through the WSIS process, through

NETmundial. So I think it's something that ICANN should also

observe and we should incorporate that evolution that

happened in the international arena.

And second, as it is defined there, private sector led, if you read

the whole text in commitment number 5, it says private sector

led including -- including the business constituency, I guess,

including academia, including civil society. This is something

that -- it's a definition that for us, it's -- it's a contradiction

actually. Because, for example, in Brazil we cannot include

academia in the private sector. So it has a problem of definition

there that we cannot accept and that's -- that's why we propose

to go to more widely accepted concepts such as

multistakeholder, for example.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. United Kingdom.

UNITED KINGDOM: Yes. Thank you, Chair. I don't think this is actually such a critical

issue, and I have to confess, I still describe in my briefings and

ministers and colleagues and in government ICANN as private

sector led because -- and also multistakeholder, of course. But I

say private sector led because the policy development usually


of 137

resides in the GNSO. We have a role as an advisory committee in

advising the board on the policy development. And we will have

a newer, more extensive role in engaging with the GNSO on early

in the policy development process. So I tend to sort of refer to

private sector led for that reason, that I don't come to ICANN

meetings to initiate policy as such but to advise the community

on policy through this committee.

So I don't know whether some kind of tweaking of the language,

multistakeholder, private sector led is one option or some

variant of that to reflect that. But it's not a dine or ditch issue,

you know. We do have much more important things to grapple

with. Thanks.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Switzerland.

SWITZERLAND: Thank you, Chair. Perhaps we would benefit from comparing

what is in the present bylaws and what is being proposed. In

essence, what is being proposed by the CCWG and what is also

work in progress, as I said before, for the part of the mission

statement is a kind of definition of what the bottom-up policy

development process is. So this was only very sketchy in the --

in the present bylaws and there was no mention when -- when it


of 137

talked about the policy development process, that it was led by

the private sector or not. That was not in -- and is not in the

bylaws text that exists currently.

So this is a kind of -- this commitment number 5 in the -- in the

proposal of the CCWG is a sort of reflection of what is being done

nowadays. Or it should be a reflection of what is being done

nowadays, how policies are developed in this very special

environment which is ICANN. And I think that there is a point of

truth in what some colleagues say when perhaps the

multistakeholder aspect should be underlined more because

that's what we do here. We participate in the policy

development process all together and, in fact, the wording of

commitment number 5 also includes these words, includes

multistakeholder. But it also includes the other wording, led by

the private sector. And then it makes definition where for some

countries I understand it's a problem because it defines the

private sector as including academia and some other parts of

the society which in some countries are more publicly sector

based, so to say. So to make this long story short, I would say, if

we really want to reflect on this commitment number 5, what is

really happening, perhaps we should underline more the

multistakeholder aspect and in any case, we should include a

reference to the government participation in this

multistakeholder policy development process. Because that's


of 137

the truth. We participate with a quick look mechanism. Without

participation and the PDPs, without participation as an advisory

council. Without participation in so many workings of this

organization and the development of policy. So it makes no

sense to not include the role of governments in commitment

number 5. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you very much. Spain.

SPAIN: Thank you, Chair. With regards to commitment 5 and core value

7, we would like to make a couple of remarks. We do not object

to the inclusion of language relating to private sector led in

neither core value 7 or commitment 5 which reflect -- we think

they reflect reality of what's the initiative in the policy

development processes in ICANN. But at the same time, we feel

it's -- it's important that the role of governments is well reflected

in commitment 5. Not only in core value 7. This is why we in our

public comments to the second draft proposal have put forward

some language reflecting the role of governments in

commitment 5. So we would very much like to have this

language with -- that really respect the multistakeholder model

and the roles of the different actors. Thank you.


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you very much. Iran.

IRAN: Chairman, perhaps I was misunderstood. I didn't say that the

multistakeholder is not important. I didn't say that the

government role should not be. I said make it priority where we

have to put our efforts, on the community mechanism, on the

community empowerment, or on this multi -- the private sector

rooted. Spend hours and hours and hours, that may not change

the things in reality. I was in favor of multistakeholder, in

general. I was in favor of the role of the government, but I said

that let us have priorities where we put our efforts. There is

some tendency to dissipate our efforts. Someone else may not

have priority. Please kindly understand the situations. I was

among the people in favor of the multistakeholder role of the

government, not anybody being subordinate to the others, but I

first just talking of priorities. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Kavouss. I think your message before that was clear

and still is clear and also your position on this point. I think --

but I think it made sense to devote 15 minutes each to the three

points other than to stress test 18, and we are basically done


of 137

with these 15 minutes. We note that on this point there are

some divergence of views on this. Many would like to see

somehow the role of governments better reflected. At the same

time this is not a question of life and death with regard to this

particular point. I think that is noted, and I think we can leave it

at that for the time being. And we will concentrate our forces

and time and energy on the discussion on stress test 18. You can

be sure of this for the next session, that we will have on this,

which I think is on Wednesday, if I'm not mistaken. Do we have a

session on Tuesday?

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Yeah, Tuesday afternoon.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: We do?

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Yes.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Excellent. It's a half an hour -- no, it's more. It's twice half an

hour and a coffee break in between we can use. So it's actually

90 minutes that we may discuss stress test 18. So we're all of

course looking forward to this. I also note that there's a lively


of 137

discussion on the mailing list on this one. So thank you for this

very constructive 45 minutes that we were looking at the other

three bullet points from the fact that nobody else -- nobody

raised another bullet point that we should concentrate on. I

assume that for the time being there is no other key issue that

we should look at. So that's it. It's 1514 so we have a few

seconds left, a few seconds left for the colleagues from the

GNSO to join us. I suggest we make some room. We shrink

ourselves a little bit more together on the table here and invite

everybody to take a seat. I don't see Jonathan yet, but I'm sure

he will be on his way. So let's take a 35 seconds break without

leaving our spaces necessarily and jump right into the next

session once Jonathan is here.

[ Break ]


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Hello, everybody, including our colleagues from the GNSO.

Please grab your coffees and take your seat. What? We are

about to start.

So thank you for taking your seats and allowing us to start. So

this is the -- our usual meeting with the GNSO. We've got 75

minutes on our agenda and I would just like to give the floor to

Jonathan right now walking in, and Jonathan, the floor is yours.

Thank you.

JONATHAN ROBINSON: Hi, everyone. Thank you. I'm not going to say much. We've got

a short agenda for you that we can come in the next slide of the

presentation I think where we can take you through some of the

recent work on the -- and an update from the GAC/GNSO

consultation group, which Manal will do, on my left. And then

we'll talk to you a little about some of the recent GNSO policy

work. And in particular really some of the current PDPs and the


of 137

use of the so-called GAC quick look mechanism that was

developed out of the GAC/GNSO consultation group. And then

third, we will obviously hear from you as to anything you would

like to raise with us.

So it's great to be with you again, and we always are very

enthusiastic about meeting with you and interacting with you

and in particular, you know, we feel we've made some really

good progress over the last 18 months or so as we've

collaborated through the GAC/GNSO consultation group. I think

it's brought those of us working on the group closer together,

and I think it's enabled us to achieve at least a good start as to

what we intended to achieve, which was to get more effective

GAC involvement with GNSO policy at an early stage. I know all

of us have been preoccupied and to some extent -- well, I think

distracted is probably not a fair word but otherwise occupied

with all of the work around the IANA transition. But this is the

bread and butter work that we talk about here and at some

point we'll be back to business as usual and this will be the

mainstay of what we do.

So let me hand over to Manal for the first section which is to talk

about the -- and we welcome your interaction on this, make no

mistake. This shouldn't be seen just as a presentation, to talk

with you about the work of the GAC/GNSO consultation group.

Go ahead, Manal.


of 137

MANAL ISMAIL: Thank you, Jonathan. As Jonathan mentioned, I will share with

you a quick status update on the GAC/GNSO consultation group

and the current issues that we are discussing within the group.

So if we go to the next slide, please. So the joint GNSO/GAC

consultation group was created as per the ATRT1 and 2 review

teams, and it's mainly to explore and enhance ways of early

engagement of the GAC in the PDPs -- the GNSO policy

development activities. So we've divided our work into two

tracks, the day-to-day ongoing coordination between the GAC

and the GNSO and the GAC early engagement in the GNSO PDP.

To date we have a GNSO liaison to the GAC on a pilot project

basis and this is Mason Cole to my very right. We also have

implementation of PDP issue scoping recommendations, also as

a pilot, and we call this the quick look mechanism. And also we

received monthly updates in a one-page format highlighting the

engagement opportunities. And also there are joint GAC/GNSO

leadership goals that are taking place prior to our meetings here

to prepare the joint agendas of our sessions and any items of

common interest to both constituencies.

So this is where we stand today. As far as what we are

discussing for the coming period, if we go to the next slide,

please, and this is more of also food for thought to my GAC


of 137

colleagues as well and if we have any reactions to those things

now, you are most welcome to request the floor. But also we

can continue discussing this intersessionally.

So as mentioned, we -- we were focusing on GAC early

engagement in the very early stage of the GNSO PDP which is the

issue scoping phase. The PDP -- and I stand to be corrected, of

course, is constituted of four phases, the issue scoping, the

initiation and the working group and the implementation. So

what the consultation group was focusing on was the issue

scoping phase and how to get early feedback from the GAC

flagging whether there are public policy implications. Now

we're looking into the remaining stages. We are considering

additional engagement opportunities in subsequent phases.

We're discussing whether the quick look mechanism should

continue into other phases. I mean, we brought this up but

definitely this discussion has to take place within the GAC. So

this feedback is also important. Should there be specific

provisions for GAC engagement, if the GAC is the requester of an

issue report, and this is meant to be what if the GAC is the -- the

requester of the issue report, should there be any specific

engagement opportunity -- like, for example, explicitly inviting

the GAC to participate in developing the charter of this PDP or

contributing to the drafting activities.


of 137

So this is the type of thing we are -- we're discussing. And also,

at the end, what if this agreement still persists after the early

engagement, meaning that what if the GAC views submitted

were not in line with the GNSO views? How can this be resolved,

whether there should be some consultation or any other

suggested mechanisms.

Also, on our agenda is the review of the GNSO liaison to the GAC,

this pilot project. Reviewing the role and functioning of the

GNSO liaison to date. And we had the set of criteria and

objectives at the very beginning. So this is something also that

we should use in our review.

And provide recommendations to the GAC and the GNSO on

whether to continue this role as a permanent position starting

the next fiscal year. So far, the GNSO liaison to the GAC is a pilot,

which we renew every year with the fiscal year of ICANN. So,

again, this remains to be seen whether we continue as a pilot or

whether we could have this as a permanent mechanism in place.

Also, taking into consideration any improvements or changes

that we could introduce to further facilitate our coordination.

And, finally, the review of the quick look mechanism itself again

from a GAC perspective. So far the quick look mechanism was

applied to three PDPs, namely, the issue report on next-

generation gTLD directory service and the new gTLD subsequent


of 137

procedures and the third we have it on one of the slides. I can't

recall it now on top of my head. I'm sorry.

And following five PDPs, we have set five PDPs as an initial

milestone where we can provide recommendations on how this

type of mechanism is helping us in our coordinating efforts. So

during our calls we heard back from the staff and support team.

But it would definitely be very useful to hear back also from the

GNSO liaison to the GAC, from the GAC itself, and from other

parties who are contributing.

Interestingly, on the last call, I heard that the GAC has provided

input earlier than what has been foreseen. So -- and this is

remarkable, I guess.

So the substantial input was seen to be submitted as soon as the

PDP is in place during the public comment period. But,

obviously, the GAC submitted some substantial contribution as

early as the issue scoping phase. This, of course, was

appreciated and welcomed. And this input will be transferred to

the working group as soon as this is in place. So, again, this is a

bit of how this is -- so far was efficient, in my view.

So, again, if you have any initial reactions to this right now, we

can discuss, of course. If not, as I said, you can use this as food

for thought. And we can continue our discussions

intersessionally and on the conference calls, of course. Again, I


of 137

mean, we can have more members who are interested and are

active, specifically, in relation to certain PDPs. If people think

they can add and contribute to the consultation group, we can

look into this as well from a membership point of view.

So I'll hand over to Mason to brief you on the current PDPs and

the GAC quick look mechanisms. Over to you, Mason. Thank

you.

JONATHAN ROBINSON: Just a thought. Unless we want to take any questions or

comments on the work thus far, we could do that as well,

Thomas. It may be that people have initial responses or

questions or comments before we go.

MANAL ISMAIL: I agree we can do this. This slide is quite dense and has many

points that we can discuss, if people feel like it. So the floor is

open for any comments.

JONATHAN ROBINSON: Thanks, Thomas. This is Jonathan, for the record. Just a

remark, really. I suppose we should be satisfied. We've made

some good progress here. As Manal said, the GAC has responded

and picked up on the opportunity to respond. These are unique


of 137

and new mechanisms. So it's very encouraging that we've got

something going from where we didn't have something before.

And so I'd just like to speak positively to that.

And that's in spite of all of the other storm of activity in and

around the stewardship which it's no secret has been occupying

many of our -- many of our own attention, much of our collective

and individual attention. So, you know, I'm very positive about

what's going on. And, if anyone would like -- even if you're not

familiar with what's going on, if you'd just like a question, as

Manal said, this is a very dense slide. And, if you're not clear on

any aspect of why we're doing what we're doing, what we're

doing, by all means, just speak up. But, if not, we can move on.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Jonathan, maybe a remark from my side. I would agree this is

progress.

Since this slide is focusing on procedural issues, maybe -- and,

given the workload that you're touching upon, it may be easier

for people to make comment once we have the concrete

examples of the current PDPs and so on that we have a little bit

of flesh at the bone to see what that actually means in a

concrete case. So I think questions will come up. But maybe

once we have the substance, that will be provided by Mason.

Thank you.


of 137

MASON COLE: Thank you very much, Thomas. I'd like to give just a brief

overview of where -- could we have the next slide, please. Thank

you -- where the GNSO's current policy development processes

stand and where the GAC either has an opportunity to

contribute or has contributed to this point.

So there are four phases right now that are relevant to this

discussion -- the issue scoping phase, the initiation phase, the

working group phase, and the implementation phase, all

different phases of policy development in the GNSO.

So there are two issues going on in the initiation phase. One is

the next-generation gTLD registry directory services, which is

what is meant to replace the WHOIS system.

GAC input was received prior to as well as during the public

comment period through the quick look mechanism that we

established. And that input was incorporated in the preliminary

as well as the final issue report.

The counsel now will consider, during the Dublin meeting,

whether to adopt the proposed PDP working group charter,

which is what actually kicks off a PDP.

And since this was a board initiated -- it's a board initiated PDP,

so there's no intermediate vote on initiation of the PDP itself.


of 137

Now, in the working group phase, the PDPs that follow now in

this phase and in the implementation phase predate the quick

look mechanism itself. However, in several of these, there have

been -- there's been engagement from the GAC either through

individual contributions or through some parts of the GAC. So,

on the issue of proxy and privacy services accreditation,

comments were received, although it was after the close of the

public comment period, on the initial report. The final report

addressed all input received and is expected to be published by

the end of the year for the council to consider.

The next issue is intergovernmental organizations and IGOs and

NGOs and the issue of curative rights. So, following a request for

input and further clarification on this issue, input was received

from the IGO coalition inside the GAC and the working group

anticipates to publish the initial report for public comment later

this year.

In the implementation phase, there are three issues. Translation

and transliteration. The PDP recommendations were recently

adopted by the ICANN board. Various GAC members

participated in their individual capacity in that PDP. The issue of

thick WHOIS. IRTP, which stands for inter-registrar transfer

process, that was divided into parts B, C, and D. That was a very

lengthy and complicated PDP. And there are other PDPs that

are also currently in the implementation phase.


of 137

On the issue of protection of IGO names in all gTLDs,

implementation of those recommendations were adopted by

the ICANN board while the GNSO is awaiting the outcome of

discussions between the GAC and the NGPC on outstanding

recommendations to determine whether further action is

needed on that issue as well. I believe that concludes the

overview. Jonathan or Thomas.

JONATHAN ROBINSON: I'll hand to Thomas to manage any questions or comments.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Let me open the floor to the whole GAC and also

others to ask questions or make comments on these concrete

cases of PDPs and where we are in case you have any.

Argentina.

ARGENTINA: Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Mason and Jonathan, for the

explanation.

As you may know, we are working in an internal working group

in the GAC about how to deal with geographic names and other

community names in next rounds of new gTLDs. Basically, what

we want to avoid is we want to diminish conflict and diminish


of 137

uncertainties for both applicants, businesses, communities, and

countries. So, from this slide, I understand that the -- this is the

new gTLD subsequent procedures. Is that the PDP related with

new rounds?

And, if that's the case, we should perhaps interact with our

working group within the GAC. Is that the space to, perhaps,

start the interaction in sharing some information that we have

gathered from the working group? Would that be fine?

JONATHAN ROBINSON: I think it's essential. I think we would welcome the opportunity.

I think it's vital that we work with you on that sort of thing. So,

yes, we'd love to have you, if that's the question, participating in

that and feeding any input into that working group, in particular,

because, yeah, that would be very useful.

I think it's -- in a more general sense, it would be very good if we

could coordinate you on any work like that, A, by knowing

what's going on, and, B, making sure that any related work

that's being done is coordinated. I don't know if there's anyone

-- we should make this not only -- I mean, there's members of

the GNSO here as well who would like to speak to specific

points, either someone who is working -- who worked on the

preparation work of the new gTLD subsequent procedures or

who is working within -- there's a Cross-Community Working


of 137

Group, as you know, working on a related area. And so, if

anyone would like to comment or make any points, please do.

ARGENTINA: Thank you, Jonathan. Just would like to clarify, the Cross-

Community Working Group on country and territory names has

a different focus related with the GAC working group. The GAC

working group focused on those names that are not in any list,

an outside formal list of ISO or United Nations or other lists that

could be used for law enforcement or reconsideration.

So the GAC is a member of that working group, which is fine. But

the work of the internal GAC working group, it's focused in a

different issue.

What we want to avoid is the level of conflict that we had in the

first round by those geographic names and city names that were

not in lists as established in the first round of the Applicant

Guidebook.

So, yes, we are aware of the working group. But this is a

different issue.

MANAL ISMAIL: I'm sorry. This is Manal, for the record. Just to set the record

right, the previous speaker was Olga from Argentina. Because


of 137

the transcript didn't get this right. So this is just for the record.

Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you for this clarification. I see the U.S. and Iran. U.S.,

please.

UNITED STATES: Thank you, Chair. And thank you, again, to Jonathan and Mason

and, of course, to Manal, our very own cochair of this particular

joint working group with a personal expression of some apology

for not being able to make some of the more recent calls due to

the pressure of other work and other priorities. But I'm very

grateful that you've come in to refresh the record for us as to

what is currently pending and what is before us. And I think it's

a useful guide. I don't know that we've got particular time

allocated on the GAC agenda, but would urge us to try to work it

in. It, I think, could be very helpful to us in looking at our own

existing working groups and workload and then maybe doing

some tweaking, if I may suggest, so that we are ensuring that the

GAC has a platform upon which we can then develop positions

to feed into these. So not all of our working groups fit some of

these particular topics.


of 137

In terms of next-generation WHOIS, we, obviously, have the

public safety working group sort of already taking ownership, if

you will, taking leadership for us. But, on the next round of

gTLDs, I think it covers a variety of issues sort of beyond geo

names and a lot of things.

So I think this is very helpful for us to think through about our

own working methods and how we might start to gear up once

we survive the current sort of workload pressure and we look

ahead. We make sure that we are properly situated and

prepared to feed into the GNSO PDPs as the ATRT1 anticipated.

So I think you're right, Jonathan. You're very gracious in

characterizing we have made some good progress. But I have I a

sense there's a lot looming ahead of us and that we, the GAC,

may need to rethink how we're going to prepare for that. So

thank you again.

JONATHAN ROBINSON: Thank you for that. So, just to be clear -- it's Jonathan for the

transcript. We -- that new gTLD subsequent procedures, I think

that's -- that the issue report, which is the scoping document for

the prospective working group is open for public comment now.

And we'd love any feedback into that issue report. And then, of

course, any substantive work coming into the work of the


of 137

working group that is then likely to follow that. So both are

desirable and would be welcomed. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Iran.

IRAN: Thank you very much, Jonathan, Mason, and Manal for the good

work you have done. We apologize we will not be able to

participate in one way due to other ICANN engagements that we

have. I hope we will be more participating in the future. And

thanks, Olga, for raising the questions of the cooperation among

the two groups. In fact, even without raising that, nothing

prevents you from communicate even to make this in order to

avoid applications or in order to improve that. But thank you

very much. I think that question, I think, are good things, good

parts. But I hope that, after the workload is slightly diminished,

we could further participate in the group. And we wish once

again to join Suzanne to express our sincere appreciation for the

work you have done. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Iran. I'm not sure everybody is familiar with that

terminology used -- for instance, new gTLDs subsequent

procedures is a very nice term that I'm sure everybody in the


of 137

room knows by heart what that means. So that sounds like a

very, actually, key issue that you may quickly want to explain

and, in particular, also the timeline. We note that there is a

public comment period that -- I'm sure that this is a key, the next

round, of course, is a key element where we spend lots of time

discussing concerns that we had or keep having with regard to

the first round but where we would like to give input at whatever

stage on recommendations or advice on how to do things

maybe differently, hopefully, better in a second round, also

things that we may have liked and we would encourage to be

done the same way as before.

So this is a key issue for us. And we should not lose the

opportunity to comment on this. Although, for the main

reasons, you know, we have been slightly hijacked by some

issues in the past. And, depending on how this meeting will go,

that may continue for a little while. Hopefully, not forever.

But it would be good to know -- to get clear information and

understandable information for an average GAC representative

that they realize what this is about and what the timelines are so

that we can easily assess that something is important.

Of course, that's also not just addressed to you but addressed to

us as a leadership team and also addressed to the GAC side of

the GAC/GNSO consultation group that we help to translate this


of 137

special language to something that is easily understandable to

GAC members and so that we realize, okay, this is something

fundamental, this is something important. We need to devote

the necessary attention and resources, if we can, to it. Thank

you very much.

JONATHAN ROBINSON: Thanks, Thomas. It's Jonathan. Let me make a couple remarks

then to try to and, perhaps, turn this into more plain language

and be clear. Of course, we've had all the new gTLD program.

And we've had all the new gTLDs go live and all the issues that

have gone on. What the GNSO -- and, in fact, baked into that

original program was some kind of -- was a plan that future

rounds could occur and, in fact, should occur.

What the GNSO did is said we owe it to ourselves and the

broader community to do some detailed review of the program.

So we formed a group that we called a discussion group. There

isn't a formal guideline for what a discussion group does. But

the discussion group came together and analyzed and looked at

as broad as possible a set of issues that came out of that and

really tried to compile all of those. We took the output of that

discussion group and fed that into the next part of the PDP,

which is the creation of the issue report.


of 137

And what the issue report sets out to do is then scope the formal

policy work that will take place in the GNSO. And that's what

you have before you at the moment.

And ICANN staff prepared issue report based on the output of

the GNSO discussion group. This really sets out the perspective

scope of policy work for any future rounds of new gTLDs. It

doesn't specify the timing of when that might occur, but it does

seek to look at the range of issues.

And so, in a sense, what you would be looking at amongst

anything you choose to look at would be does this cover the

range of issues that you would like to see covered in any future

policy work? And, if it does, well and good. If it doesn't, we'd

like to hear from you via the public comment period on the issue

report saying, well, you are missing A, B, or C. And that's really

at minimum what we'd like to hear from you, I think. So I hope

that's helpful to add something.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. That's helpful. What is the deadline again for this

initial opportunity to comment, if you could just quickly recall it?

End of October or --

JONATHAN ROBINSON: October 30th.


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: October 30th. I think that leaves us with 12 days to use them.

And yes. Any questions, comments in addition to this? Yes, U.K.

UNITED KINGDOM: Yes. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Manal, Jonathan, Mason,

and all the team on the GAC/GNSO consultation group, which

I've contributed a little bit to.

I think it's good progress. This is a step change for the GAC. It's

early days. But the experience so far, I think, is indeed, very

good. But there is more work to be done in the consultation

group as we probably are kind of in sync with these PDPs that

are on the move now. The GAC will need to consider how it

remains engaged in the working group phase for these PDPs.

And we've had some thinking in the consultation group about

that and the role of the liaison in the person of Mason I thought

was quite important.

For example, you could conceive of a situation where the GAC

has provided input. And that might be -- not fit so easily with the

working group range of issues. And so how do you reconcile

that? And it's important that there be some kind of mechanism

for doing that. And, as the PDP progresses, the work progresses

and matures and new issues come to light, there's also the


of 137

possibility of the GAC wanting to communicate new angles to

the issue at the heart of the PDP, which had not been apparent

in the early phases, at the quick look phase and so on.

So this will come with experience, no doubt. But it will be good

for the consultation group to anticipate that. And our own GAC

working groups, as we've -- as Olga has mentioned and you've

got on the slide there, the GAC public safety working group have

a means of focusing GAC involvement within their -- within the

remit of these particular working groups and how that might

then become more, actually, concrete in terms of how the

working group proceeds. Because I -- if I understand correctly,

there is a member of the GAC public safety working group now

involved in the working group, the PDP working group.

So that's an example of how this is starting to get into --

embedded into the GAC modalities in a concrete, effective,

efficient way, which is how we always envisaged early

involvement in policy development being realized. So it's --

that's good.

We, in the consultation group, will need to see how we continue

to build on this progress and enhance mechanism. So the more

colleagues who can join it and share thinking and bring ideas to

the GAC/GNSO consultation group, the better.


of 137

But I think that those are the points I wanted to mention so far.

Good progress all around. Thank you. Look forward to the next

PDP issues paper coming down the track at some point. Thank

you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. I think we have Thailand. And then Olof would like

to add something. And then we propose to go to the next slide.

Okay. That's -- all right. So Thailand, please.

THAILAND: Wanawit, for the record. As we participate in the PDP all the way

to the implementation phase -- and thanks for the liaison teams

and the teams working for coordinate.

But I'd like to raise the issues that the way that we need to

engage, the GAC is -- I think the topic sometimes -- even I reread

it through, like review of RPM in all of gTLD, I don't even know

what it is. How could you communicate to the GAC? And I think

in most of the case when we see the working groups, if you have

the GAC participate and have a sense of belonging that they are

the one that need to catch up with the PDP, brief the GACs, I

think that one of the things that I do believe that it's need that

kind of mechanisms. It's not like point a finger that this country

can be responsible. But how could we have informal ways? Is it


of 137

possible to have the head of the working groups in the GNSO

catch up with the GACs and then get to know each other? And

then we -- I think that's how I participate. Because I know who is

the chair, who is working, what are the topics? And so in case

one is not reading the document that's sent for GNSO only, how

could we have more interactions of the team, of the people to

know who is running what? I think that is what I'd like to

propose. Thank you.

JONATHAN ROBINSON: Thank you. I think that's a very useful concrete suggestion. I

would like to give the floor again to Manal to continue with the

slides. Thank you.

MANAL ISMAIL: Thank you. So -- and thanks to all my GAC colleagues for their

interventions which paved the way nicely to -- if not even

covered our last slide of this presentation.

So, if we go to the next slide, please, we thought it might be also

helpful if we do the same exercise for the GAC work as it is

relevant to the GNSO. So the quick look mechanism we already -

- the next-generation gTLD registration directory services for this

PDP, the quick look mechanism has already delivered input. For


of 137

the new gTLD subsequent procedures, the quick look

mechanism input is currently in preparation.

And, for the review of rights protection mechanisms in old

gTLDs, this request has just been received by the quick look

mechanism committee. This is as far as the quick looks page is

concerned.

If we move to the following steps after the -- no, I mean -- after

the quick look mechanism, we have the next-generation gTLD

registration directory services. For this the public safety working

group, as mentioned by my colleagues, has already been

assigned to follow up on this topic. And, for the new gTLD

subsequent procedures, again, as Jonathan also mentioned, this

is currently under discussion. It's also under discussion from the

GAC side. And it's not clear yet whether this is going to be

attributed to one of the current working groups, we need new

structure to it, or how things will be followed.

Finally, regarding other threads, we have the proxy and privacy

services accreditation. And again, for this, also the Public Safety

Working Group has already provided comments on the initial

report. For the protection of IGO names, there is a small GAC

working group working on this, and for the translation and

transliteration, I know GAC members have individually

participated to this, and I particularly recall Thailand in that


of 137

respect. I understand you have already been active within this

PDP.

Again, the spec 11 security framework, also the Public Safety

Working Group is involved in this one as well.

And finally, the geographic names and the three-character codes

which we have been briefed on it this morning. There is the

Cross-Community Working Group on use of country and territory

names as top-level domains. And the GAC working group also --

I'm sorry. I went blank.

So, again, those are the different PDPs from the GAC steps and

phases.

So we thought if we look into the different PDPs from both

views, the GAC and the GNSO, it would have been helpful.

So, again, as soon as the -- as soon as the alerts come from the

GNSO to the quick-look mechanism and the reply goes back to

the GNSO flagging the interest of the GAC in this, if we have an

established working group that could assume responsibility and

follow on the task, this already takes place, like we have done

with the Public Safety Working Group. If not, the GAC looks into

and considers whether we need to establish a new working

group for this or not.


of 137

So with this, I'll hand back to Jonathan for any other business, or

maybe Thomas?

JONATHAN ROBINSON: It's Jonathan, for the transcript.

Just a quick response to Wanawit's suggestion. I think that was

an interesting idea, and maybe that could work where, when

and if we have new working groups that are commissioned or

about to get going with their work, we could invite the working

group chairs perhaps even to this session to give a brief, you

know, five-minute pitch or description of their work and see

whether that made sense for -- you know, to further encourage

any participation.

So that seems like a good idea, because it has a twofold benefit.

It would make sure that the person leading the work in the

GNSO would actually be able to present the work. And so you

got it firsthand. And also gave the opportunity to, in that sense,

advertise the work of the working group and give the

opportunity for anyone from this group to participate should

they see fit, even if that is understood to be only on an individual

basis.

Thank you.


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. I think this is a very good proposal, and that brings

me actually to a remark. We are still very much focusing on

process in our exchanges that we have and very little on

substance, which is important, but we should get to a stage

where we have passed the process development phase in how

we engage with each other, and I think we are on a good track

there, and we should start spending more time on exchanging

actual substance and, for instance, I take this also as something

that is in the responsibility on our side of that consultation

mechanism that we should be more clear who is doing what,

who is working on what that you know from on our side, who are

the GAC leads, and we know from your side, who are the chairs

of the working groups, what are the key issues.

And with regard to the relevance of our work, if you look at our

agenda, you have basically every second item is relevant to at

least -- well, the accountability -- if I take off the accountability,

it's almost everything tha we do that is related to one of the -- of

your PDPs that are ongoing; in particular, the one with regard to

the next round. And of course also that includes the review of

the current round where most of our issues, including two-letter

country codes, three-letter country codes, IGO protection, and

all these issues will continue in the next round.

So I think we should really speed up our, let's say, process

development and terminate our process development process


of 137

very quickly and then start to actually engage in a way that it's

also, as I said before, sometimes I have a feeling that for GAC

members who do not have that many resources, that they don't

see the substance in the process discussion anymore. And then,

of course, they lose interest. They go on other issues where the

substance is more visible.

So we really should do our best to make this work and these

exchanges as easily accessible and as concrete as possible. So

I'm quite happy to see that we seem to have a process that

seems to be in place and work. And I think we should, from our

side, see that we can expand our team that is part of our GNSO --

GAC-GNSO Consultation Group in order to have more resources

and more channels to transmit substantive information.

And just for your information, we will -- we have started to deal

with some aspects of reviewing the first round and discussing

about elements that are important to the GAC for the second

round. And this is a key work that we will now continue to

discuss here in Dublin with a view to, hopefully, contributing

substantively to the -- before the end of the month to the

subsequent procedures working group or issue. This is one

element. So I think we should really go from process to stance,

and that would be extremely useful, I guess, for both parties.

Thank you.


of 137

JONATHAN ROBINSON: So thank you, Thomas. I can't help but agree with you. It's time

to move on now. We can easily pick up and focus more on

substance, and I think that will be very useful to do.

We did create the opportunity within this agenda, there are

really two more things. One is any update on -- any further

comment on the GAC activities. And then under any other

business, I thought there's really -- I guess we could give you a

brief comment from David on the work on the GAC communique,

and any other areas that anyone would like to comment on or

question on.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. I think you see quite a lot of the areas that GAC is

working on on this slide. Others have been mentioned. Since

we can't go into detail on anything, I wouldn't repeat them, but

if you have a particular question on an issue that we've working

on that you've heard today or you may not have heard and you

wonder whether we are working on something, of course you're

free to ask and comment.

I think one issue be we would benefit from your deliberations,

and that is actually on the agenda, is, of course, to it hear from

you, spend some time hearing from you and your views on how


of 137

to apply the new meeting structure and what you plan to do. So

this is something that I am sure because we will have that

discussion on Thursday. So we would be very interesting in

hearing from you about a new meeting structure. I think this is

one of the key elements that I think we should exchange on, that

would be of interest from our side to hear.

JONATHAN ROBINSON: That's a good point. That's Jonathan. We do have some work

going on on that, and, in fact, we -- what's critical to that work is

clearly there's one of those meetings that's substantially

different. The others are potentially a little different. And in

fact, it was something that we've done some working, thinking

about how we will do things. And what's become increasingly

apparent, which is implicit in what you just said there, Thomas,

is that this is not something that we can do in isolation. In fact,

we raised it at our meeting with the ICANN Board today and

highlighted to them that this was some work going on. And I

believe that there is a meeting scheduled by the ICANN meetings

group led by Nick Tomasso to try and do some coordination on

this after ICANN 54 here in Dublin.

And so we're certainly aware of that. We can certainly link up

with you on both our initial plans and then to talk with you

about how those initial plans might dovetail with yours. And it


of 137

does seem that this is going to have to be something which is

done in an iterative way because we work -- we have our own

views as to how to make best use of that. "We" as in the

different SOs and ACs. And then somehow we need to come

together and formulate a collective plan.

So in one sense, it seems that there's quite a long time to sort

this out. But, actually, when it comes to marrying up the

different proposals with how to deal with that new structure,

actually it is timely to get on with it now.

So we recognize that and are happy to coordinate and

communicate with you on that.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: European Commission.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thank you very much, and thank you for the presentation. It's

Megan Richards from the European Commission for the record.

I wanted to ask you. And don't worry, I'm not going to ask you

the details or to describe anything, but on translation and

transliteration, could you point us in the direction of the GAC

member who is involved so we can ask our more specific and


of 137

detailed questions to them? I don't want to bother the whole

group with it.

Thanks.

MANAL ISMAIL: Sorry. This is Manal for the record.

So European Commission is asking about GAC members who are

active in the translation and transliteration PDP. So if you want

to comment on this.

THAILAND: Yes, it is Thailand, that we participate since the very early day, or

even the first meeting, I think, we just ran into the meeting

rooms. In fact, I think it was just coincidentally. We just

interested in that topics, and we engaged since then because we

do see the issue that might relate to the public policy for the

non-Romanized country. And we also bring in China and the

other country as well during the comment periods. That how it

start. And we do see the benefit because, like I told this

morning, from the final reports, there have been known some of

the issues that we make the comments. Even though the

recommendation were not in the same as we having point out,

like whether it's translate is mandatory or not. It's okay anyhow,


of 137

but we just raise the issues that we concerned about the cost,

how it should be done, and all other relevant.

So it will help if finally is need for the implementations or if may

need GAC advice in the future, I think we have some ground.

And we understand the subject, I think. It's what we contribute

at times there.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you very much, Thailand.

Any more questions?

UNITED KINGDOM: Yes, thank you, Chair. It's just a suggestion, but this slide is quite

useful. It gives a good account of current work in progress. And

maybe this could be expanded into -- not into a huge document

but like a one- or two-pager sort of bulletin that would issue

from time to time so that you can track progress of individual

issues as they go through the quick look, and then on to issues

and into working groups and with active GAC participation. Just

some sort of a central information. I think it would be very

useful for us, and also for newcomers into the GAC, so they can

see something they would want to connect with, perhaps.

Thank you.


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. I think this is a useful suggestion that we have taken

note of.

JONATHAN ROBINSON: I think it would be useful perhaps for you, but certainly for us. I

mean, so in both directions it may be useful.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Any further comments or questions?

If not, I think we would really like to hear a little bit more on how

concretely you -- if you are already there, because we are not

there yet, on how you plan to organize in particular the B

meeting for next year. If you have concrete plans that you can

share, that would be -- would be helpful. In particular, this

community day and whether you have any concrete ideas on

that, and maybe questions like what elements of the meetings

that you used to do in every meeting are you considering of not

doing in the B meeting? For instance, questions like that,

because we will have to ask these questions on Thursday. And

as you say, it's timely because we need to know now how we will

conduct the "A" meeting in relation to the "B" meeting, and so

on. So whatever you can share with us at this stage of course

would be helpful.


of 137

JONATHAN ROBINSON: This initiative is being led by vice chair in the GNSO Council,

Volker Greimann. Is Volker here?

It sounds like no. Is anyone else willing or able to talk to this? It

would be useful. It nice to have participation from someone

other than from the front table.

We have a skeleton schedule that we've been working on which

we can share with you. I think that's probably the best way. We

can share that via the secretariat and show where we've got to

and the kind of thinking we've got, and that we can do as a

starting point. And at least then it will be great because you're

aware of where we've got to on that as you start your own

deliberations on it.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Of course, we'll continue. I think this is an issue. You know,

there is the SO/AC leadership calls that we try to have, and I

think this is an issue that we can put out for the next few

months. Maybe not regularly but from time to time. So thank

you.

Any other business under any other business?


of 137

DAVID CAKE: I just wanted to very briefly mention that we -- as I mentioned at

the last meeting, we, the GNSO, have decided to issue to issue a

response to the GAC communique.

(Audio problem)

...is informed by, you know, specific comments from the GNSO

(indiscernible) general sort of assumptions. So it's simply to

better inform the board. But because it is about the GAC

communique, we are interesting to hear, you know, whether or

not it is useful to the GAC in any way, and whether or not you

think, you know, our format is sort of appropriate or whatever.

Basically, it just simply -- all I want to say is to make you aware

that we have done this. It's the first time. We are still feeling our

way as to whether or not how useful a mechanism this will be,

and we had some discussion with the Board today. But if you

have any feedback for us, formal or informal, on that, whether --

how the GAC feels about that mechanism, that would be

welcomed. And we are still sort of working out how we will use

this mechanism in the future.

That's all, really.


of 137

JONATHAN ROBINSON: Thanks, David. So that's David Cake for the record. It's

Jonathan Robinson speaking now. It's myself, Jonathan, now,

not Thomas.

Yes, we spoke with you about this at the previous meeting.

Essentially you produce a communique, as you well know, at

each meeting, and we felt it would be valuable to the Board and

to ourselves and possibly to you if we look through that

communique with a particular lens. And that lens was to say is

there current or prospective GNSO policy work either --

DAVID CAKE: Or past.

JONATHAN ROBINSON: Or past, that's true. Past, current, or prospective policy work in

relation that has gone on or will go on directly connected to that

communique.

So it's an attempt to, yet again, lock in the work that you're

doing and that we're doing at any given time and make sure that

we don't -- we don't sort of bifurcate in the way in which we're

working and separate in work in parallel but on connected

tracks.


of 137

So there's -- We're trying to do this at various levels, and this was

another constructive suggestion that we had received and

decided to take up upon. And we did that for the first time

based on your communique at the last meeting, and propose to

do that in future meetings as well.

Now, to the extent that your communique doesn't have any

content in it that touches on past, present, or future policy work,

I would expect we would not say anything, but to the extent that

it does, we will make every effort to communicate that to the

Board and copy you in so that the loops are closed in the various

ways. And, as I say, we don't sort of end up separating, and keep

our working relationships tight and coordinated.

So that's it. It's as much and as little as that.

Thank you, Thomas.

DAVID CAKE: Just to add to that. We were not leaving out the possibility we

may offer some detailed response to the Board explaining how

we feel our -- appropriate way to handle it within our policy

processes, and so on. But we're not guaranteeing we will do

that. It's simply where -- it's an evolving mechanism.


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you.

If you have comments or questions on this item, which, I'm

sorry, I forgot that we tabled this, and it's very good that we

table this, please feel free to make comment.

I'm actually right now relooking -- I have been looking at this

before but I have been reading so many papers that I needed to

relook, and I actually think that the information that you've

been given at the end of June, so quite soon after the meeting, is

really useful in terms of knowing what you are doing on the

issues. It gives factual information on your processes and what

is going on, what has been done, what is planned to be done.

So I think that this is useful information that we should also,

yeah, benefit from in our deliberations.

JONATHAN ROBINSON: Thank you, Thomas. It's Jonathan.

So we deliberately tried to do a very structured response with

that in mind. So thank you. And I do know and understand, and

we know and understand because we're in the same position,

how much of a flow of information.

As I said at the outset of this meeting, and maybe this can be a

closing remark, in essence we hope to get back to business as


of 137

usual at some point where we work together in an effective way

using the tools that we've developed over the last year or so in

managing a constructive flow to and from the development of

policy-making work, and in so doing, demonstrate and live

effective use of the multistakeholder model.

So thank you. I'm glad you appreciate it, and we'll welcome any

comments that might refine or improve that.


So if you have any comments on this document that we are

discussing, then please. We have a few minutes left so you're

free to make it.

If not, I have nothing else for the time being to add than to thank

you for coming here.

I don't know whether you have other businesses with us now.

JONATHAN ROBINSON: I think -- I think that's it. That was what we hoped to raise with

you, and it's been a useful exchange. And we take away some

very constructive comments, and also your feedback that

substance is important, which is consistent with the point that I

was making about sort of business as usual.


of 137

So, yes, thank you very much. And we look forward to

continuing.

MANAL ISMAIL: Thank you, Thomas. This is Manal.

Just to add my thanks to my GAC colleagues on the consultation

group, to Jonathan, Mason, and David, and other GNSO

colleagues who are participating with us, but also to thank Olof

and Marika and the ICANN support for the enormous support

they are giving us and for the excellent presentation. They

helped in putting everything together very structurally. And also

Tom for assisting us with the quick-look mechanism committee

throughout the past period. So thanks to everybody. Thank

you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Just to join the thanks, and thank you for coming here. So that

means we have four minutes more than a 15 minute coffee

break.

JONATHAN ROBINSON: Maybe you can thank us most for that.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay. No, no. There's more thanks.


of 137

All right. So this is a coffee break. We will meet again at 1645.

We have a 45-minute slot for the ICG. We are quite confident we

won't need this all, but I have got requests that we should

continue to discuss stress test 18 -- stress test 18, you know what

that is -- today. So we will use a part of that time for discussing

stress test 18.

Yes, Iran.

IRAN: Thank you, Chair. I concur with you, you may need five minutes

for ICG only.

Thank you.


[ Laughter ]

[ Coffee break ]


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: It is time to resume the meeting. So please do take your seats.

And we need to continue with our agenda, so please take your

seats.

The next item on our agenda is item number 14. And we'll start

with giving the floor to those who have been able to follow on

our behalf the progress in the ICG. I would like to start with

Manal as one of the five GAC members in the ICG to help us bring

us up to date on the latest developments and also outstanding

work that needs to be fulfilled. So thank you, please, Manal, to

start.

MANAL ISMAIL: Thank you, Thomas. So, as colleagues may know, the ICG has

met here in Dublin yesterday and today and will reconvene

again on Thursday and Friday.


of 137

We've been working on an inventory of implementation

activities. And this has been coordinated through the three

operational communities. We're working on a summary report

of the public comments received during the public comment

period. The report would comprise three different parts --

statistics and the approach followed in handling the comments,

and then the major themes that were received.

We have received 157 comments from wide variety of

stakeholders.

The issues already agreed about, and the ICG knows the answers

for those issues. But the community feels this was not clear

enough in the proposal. This is going to be edited directly in

part zero of the proposal, which is the ICG report that is attached

to the proposal.

Other issues that need answers will be forwarded -- have

actually already been forwarded to the three operational

communities.

And, as soon as we receive all the comments again, we ask them

to advise whether those could be edited directly in the ICG

report ICG or need to be edited in the different operational

communities, individual proposals. Because, as you may guess,

the latter may need another round of public comments. So this

has been working closely with the operational communities.


of 137

And, finally, the third category of comments received were

comments objecting to the whole transition idea or -- I mean,

comments that do not require an action such as comments

opposing to the whole idea of the transition, which is, I mean,

too late to raise this and to have an action in relation.

The main major themes received included jurisdiction of the PTI,

the root zone maintainer timeline and dependency with the

CCWG proposal, the IANA IPR issues, of course, as well as direct

responses to the ICG questions in relation to the ICG RFP criteria

and the NTIA criteria.

Of course, following this exercise we're looking also on the

transition proposal and updates to part zero of the proposal in

reaction to the public comments received and the replies

received from the operational communities.

Moreover, we're also discussing the ICG role, if any, during the

implementation phase. And there are ongoing discussions

whether this should be also discussed in cooperation with the

operational communities. Also the ICG timeline and the way

forward giving the CCWG dependency, this is also a topic that

was discussed today. And the tendency is to continue to

advance the proposal as planned aiming to make as much

progress as possible and to highlight the interdependencies

throughout the proposal and issue a status update by the end of


of 137

this week and continue, of course, to follow the progress and

wait for further developments.

And, finally, I would encourage colleagues to attend the

engagement session tomorrow, 12:00 to 1:00 immediately after

the accountability discussions in the auditorium where the

opening will take place. I have to say that I did not get the

chance to coordinate everything with other colleagues. So,

please, if they need to add anything or correct anything, feel

free.

Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. So the question is to other members, do you want to

add something to the information that has been given to us by

Manal from Egypt? If that is not the case, are there any

questions that GAC members would want to address to our

members that participate in the ICG?

If this is not the case, maybe just a quick question. Is there any

action or reaction required from us as a GAC with regard to the

ICG for the time being? From what I read, this is not the case at

this time. Do I get this right? Okay. I see Manal and everybody

else nodding. So --


of 137

MANAL ISMAIL: Yeah, probably would speed up the accountability.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you for this valuable input. So I don't see any

hands up. Yes, Indonesia.

INDONESIA: Just further question. Because ICG looks after the meeting for

transferring IANA and so on. Yesterday Fadi mentioned about

the -- some worries about the timeline of the transfer. Currently,

the U.S. has delayed the transfer for one year and with an option

of another three years. I just want to know what the ICG thinks

about that. Can you finalize this in one year or three years?

Because, otherwise, if there is no idea -- if there is no -- there

should be at least asked why U.S.extended another three years,

option of three years. Although this extends one year, there is an

option of three years. There should be a reason why they would

like to put option in three years. My feeling is that there are

some people who don't believe that it can be finalized in one

year. And so there's an option of three years. I want to know

how the ICG thinks about that. Thank you.


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. I think that was a rather theoretical option. But let

me give the floor to Manal who was first to raise her hand to

answer your question about the timeline in regard to the ICG.

MANAL ISMAIL: So from an ICG perspective, as you may know, the final proposal

is comprised of three different proposals from the three

operational communities. Specifically, the names proposal is

dependent on the accountability proposal. So they have some

accountability measures that need to be taken care of and

considered in the final accountability proposal. So the ICG

committed that, by the time the accountability proposal is

ready, it will communicate with the names community to make

sure that their accountability requirements have been met. So

this is the only thing pending from an ICG perspective.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: So that means that the ICG is basically ready and just needs to

wait to be able to fit in the accountability elements that are

needed. So, from an ICG point of view, there's no reason to

extend the timeline. I had the EU Commission.


of 137

EU COMMISSION: Yes, thank you very much. This is Megan Richards, for the

record, from the European Commission. I just wanted to clarify

the facts based on what Indonesia just said.

The contract that existed between the NTIA and ICANN was

foreseen to end on the 30th of September 2015. But that

existing contract had a clause which said it could be extended by

two years and by another two years. So for a maximum of four

years.

So the fact that NTIA extended it by one year wasn't a question

of delaying anything. And so the word "delay" is perhaps not the

best one to use in this context. Certainly, the contract was

extended by one year. It could have been extended by two

years. That's what the contract said. It would be an automatic

extension of two years. But they only extended one year to

allow all of us -- the community, NTIA, the U.S., process and

everything -- to take its place and to -- it was expected that that

one-year extension would allow everyone to carry out the work

and the contract could end by then. So I think it's really

important just to clarify those aspects.

So this recent extension of one year was not an extension and

another three years. The existing contract foresaw a 4-years

extension. And, in fact, it was only extended one year. Just to

clarify things.


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Just to add to that, I think the NTIA asked the community before

extending how long it would think that it would take to

complete the ongoing work. And after the -- based on the

feedback that it received from the community, that 1-year

extension was decided.

Anybody else who wants to comment or question on the ICG

update that we've received?

If that is not the case, then let us continue and spend some time

on the accountability work, in particular, stress test 18 as has

been requested that we devote some time, I think. Let us use

this time. So the floor is yours, whoever wants to come in,

continue our discussion from yesterday. You're welcome.

Maybe to help you catch up, we have heard yesterday a few

views and opinions expressed by a number of GAC members.

And we seem to have a disagreement on the usefulness or

necessity of stress test 18, including the rationale that is

supposed to explain that necessity. And we also seem to have

an agreement on the proposed outcome or consequence of

stress test 18, just to wrap up. And we need to try and figure out

a way that the GAC may come to an agreement or shared view

on stress test 18 and its outcome. That is the aim that we're

trying to pursue here. And I'm very happy to do all I can to


of 137

facilitate that process together with you and with others that

may join me in facilitating this.

So who wants to start? Yes, Iran.

IRAN: Thank you, Thomas.

I think we need to carefully read what is currently in Article IX,

section 2. In paragraph J, it mentioned the advice of the

Governmental Advisory Committee. And go on up to the end.

What is a stress test 18, which may not be translatable in some

other languages rather than contingency tests, is to categorize

the advice in two categories. Advise with consensus and advise

other than consensus. And they want to put everything in the

bylaw relating to the actions to be taken by the board if it does

not agree with the advice of the GAC to get into the discussions

with the GAC, try to find a workable solution. They want to limit

this action only to the advice that is made with consensus.

Other type of advice they want to put it aside. So this is the main

difference.

Currently, the issue is ownership, is wide, may implicitly applies

to the whole advice. But they want to say that actions of the

ICANN to get into the consultations and agreement and


of 137

consultations with the GAC is limited to only those advice which

followed by a consensus.

And then consensus they have to follow the consensus that it is

in our principle 47. But some colleagues -- I don't want to name

-- they mention that abstention is not a neutral idea. It might be

taken as objections. So this is a very, very critical issue. We

should be very careful with respect to that. If everybody agrees

that this new wording of the stress test 18 is acceptable, you can

go with that one.

But there is another element in stress test 18. And that is they

provide some instruction to us saying that in future we may

change the principle 47. I personally don't think that we need

such an advice or instructions. Every community or every SO

and AC may at any time change its operating principles. So

there is no necessity for that.

The third issue, some people want to put stress test 18; but they

should not associate that with the stability, security, resiliency

and robustness of the DNS nor to be captured by a particular SO

and AC. They want to change it for some other purposes. So

they should not associate it with this.

So now it is up to you to have your meeting to see whether you

want to categorize it with your advice or your advice of GAC or

you want to make it general as it is in the principle 47.


of 137

I would like to add a risk in the future that this may come that in

future that some people come to the GAC and by motions they

change the principle of the 47 to other operating principles. And

then easily they go from the consensus to the simple majority or

supermajority so on and so forth. So we should be also careful

of the consequential changes or consequential problems that

may exist in future. All of these issues should be taken into

account to go into one way or to other way. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Just to flag to you that you all have these texts now

on hard copy. And the most relevant parts will be displayed also

on the screens we see behind us.

I have Paraguay and Denmark next. Paraguay, please.

PARAGUAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Three things very quickly. Number one:

Paraguay explicitly opposes string test 18. Basically, we don't

see the need or urgency or rush to amend the bylaws Article XI,

Section 2, Clause J.

And the third thing we don't understand why GAC, that is

governments, should act immediately based upon the CCWG

request. Thank you.


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Paraguay. Denmark.

DENMARK: Yes, thank you. It's a brief comment. It is certainly our

understanding that it's the Board's responsibility to duly take

into account all GAC advice, even the advice that is not

supported by consensus.

Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: I have Spain then brazil. And you are not Vietnam, I suppose.

Chile. Okay. And Australia and China.

Okay.

So Spain first. Thank you.

SPAIN: Thank you. I'd like to chime in in the comment made by Kavouss

that told us that the intention or the outcome of the stress test

18 could be to establish two kinds of GAC advice -- the one that

can trigger the bylaws consultation procedure and the one that

cannot take -- cannot trigger it.


of 137

And I think that, when principle 47 in GAC operating principle

says that, when consensus is not possible, the Chair shall convey

the full range of views expressed by members of the ICANN

board is meant, as my genius colleague has pointed out, is

meant for the GAC to take into account all views that the GAC

can express, even if the GAC has not been able to arrive at a

consensus position. Because even though all the -- all the views

that -- the diversity of views convey a public policy perspective,

that ICANN cannot do without. So restricting the special

consideration of GAC advice exclusively to that that is achieved

by consensus could mean that the other public policy

perspectives are not taken into account.

And, as I have expressed yesterday, I still fail to see what is the

rationale for stress test 18. I heard yesterday comments on

questions saying that maybe there are risk for the stability of the

system, if the GAC is bound to take into account GAC advice that

is not achieved by consensus, if you have to engage with GAC in

a dialogue. What is that risk? I could be very gratefully one if

someone can explain to me what that risk is? Because we are

just an advisory committee, but the GNSO is a policy

development organization.

They can adopt their policy proposals by a supermajority. There

are proposals impact on the community too. And so far no one

has raised any question about risk for the community. If the


of 137

Board doesn't accept a GNSO proposal or does accept it because

of the threshold of -- to achieve it. So I will not reiterate what

others have said. I stop here to hear more views about this.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. We have 10 minutes left until the next agenda item

where we should be more or less in time. So I would urge you

not to go beyond two minutes each because we have five

requests for the floor for the time being. So I start with Brazil.

BRAZIL: Thank you, Thomas. Let me begin by welcoming colleagues

attempt to find a possible compromise on the well-known stress

test 18. Let me say that, unfortunately, in spite of the decent

arguments provided so far, we continue to hold the view that it's

a mistake to present stress test 18 as a condition, as a

prerequisite for the IANA transition. We do believe this

discussion on stress test 18 is surrounded by a number of

misperceptions, perhaps some deliberate ones. And we've been

following this discussion very carefully. And I've been hearing

different views like I quote that the level of required deference is

unique to the GAC or, like, the GAC has a privileged position or

even that the GAC could command the Board. These are

misstatements that were made on this issue.


of 137

And we do believe that these assumptions, they simply ignore

the fact that, in the very end, the ICANN board can reject GAC

advice with the single majority voting. And for me, this is not a

privileged position, especially when the threshold for the board

to reject a PDP recommendation from the GNSO, for instance, is

a two-third majority vote.

And so that's why, in our view, the stress test 18 constitutes a

clear interference in the current GAC decision-making process.

We do believe that what's at stake here is the GAC autonomy to

adopt its own internal procedures. And in the light of different

rationales presented so far and in the absence of other

arguments, Brazil remains convinced that we should reject

stress test 18 and remain with the status quo.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Chile.

CHILE: Thank you, Chairman. I'm going to speak in Spanish. I would

like to be brief. Chile wants to support and be part of the

countries that are against stress test 18. My colleagues have

already stated the arguments. And I absolutely share the

arguments of Spain, France, and Brazil. So I would like to show

that Chile is joining that position.


of 137

AUSTRALIA: Thank you, Chair. We consider that the GAC's advisory role is

fundamental to the multistakeholder model. But we do strongly

support decisions being made by consensus. And we think that,

like, it's -- when all governments are in agreement on a

particular issue, that the Board should give due deference to the

government's concerns.

But I just think it's difficult to see how the Board could respond

to advice when the GAC itself couldn't agree on it. So we think

that advice that goes to the Board should be -- although the

Board is required to negotiate only if it doesn't want to follow --

should only be by strong consensus. We think consensus is

inclusive. It encourages a diversity of views and ensures that all

GAC members have their concerns taken into consideration.

And we support formalizing the consensus rule. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Australia. Next I have China.

CHINA: Thank you, Chairman. About this issue, stress test 18, we don't

support for the proposed ICANN bylaw change.


of 137

Also we can understand that those members who are in favor of

the proposed bylaw change, but we think to decide what is GAC

advice is the business of GAC. It is not appropriate for other

groups to define what is GAC advice. There is a danger in this to

prejudge what is GAC advice.

So we think GAC advice, the definition of GAC advice should not

be the working scope of the CCWG. I think on this issue, this

causes unnecessary debate within the GAC. So we suggest the

CCWG report take -- carefully deal with this content. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Next I have the gentleman -- are you from

Turkmenistan? Is my list right?

LEBANON: Good morning. I'm representing Lebanon officially, in fact,

within the GAC. This is my first time speaking here in the GAC

because this is an important issue for everybody. I have heard

Spain, I've heard Chile, Brazil, and the intervention of the other

representatives, including the intervention of Australia. But

before giving the opinion of Lebanon, I would like to go a step

back because this type of topic related to Internet governance is

also related to the reform within ICANN.


of 137

If this topic is discussed within the GAC, it's because some of the

representatives present in this room are also taking part are also

involved in the same discussions within some other institutions.

As far as I remember, there has been a discussion in the meeting

of plenipotentiaries in the ITU you in Busan last year, 2015.

But last week in Budapest, in the international teleconference --

telecommunications conference, there was also a discussion in

this respect, that this discussion is also being held in the

European Union or within the Arab League.

There's a feeling or there is an impression that governments

should participate in Internet governance. And this was clearly

stated in the statement prepared NETmundial.

So it is necessary to have a consensus so that an issue may be

submitted to the ICANN Boards. This may certainly block the

dialogue and block the GAC.

Let's say there is no consensus on a specific issue. What will

happen in that case?

The operation of the GAC would then come to a halt, and then

what would be the message that the governments would be

conveying?


of 137

After this demonstration, I will join the opinion of the countries

that have shown certain research regarding the stress test 18,

and I would say that Lebanon is against the stress test 18.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Lebanon.

Stop rather soon. I can't take -- I will close the list for today after

Peru, and the gentleman was first. I think it was the (saying

name), and then we need to stop for today and decide about the

way forward. So we can't expand because we have another

session where we have some people that are listening and

probably interacting.

So let me start with Peru.

PERU: I will speak in Spanish.

I would join what has been said by my colleagues of Spain,

France, Paraguay and Chile, and all those who have supported

that opinion, particularly the opinion of Brazil.

The person that mentioned, for instance, that diversity is an

expression that the consensus may show diversity, I certainly

would like to say that it's the other way around. Consensus is


of 137

not an expression, a reflection of diversity, but you the other way

around.

Peru is also concerned that behind this intention of amending

the bylaws of ICANN, there might be a hidden intention of

removing GAC's autonomy.

I think we should not admit that because this is something that

has not been requested to any other committee within ICANN,

and, secondly, because it goes against the multistakeholder

principle, because in the multistakeholder model, we are

supposed to have the same opportunity to have a say to express

our views.

So if I have to have an opinion on the basis of the procedure

that is not required to any other entity within the ICANN, this is

not being equal.

So I repeat the words of my Paraguayan colleague. I don't see

the purpose of modifying or amending something that has

worked so good so far.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: (saying name).

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, but I'm representing Venezuela.


of 137

I would like to thank the opportunity of having the floor, and we

certainly thank the document that you have prepared and is

shown on the screen, because this is very important, very

valuable, and without this information it's very difficult for

governments to manage such an important topic.

After reading this in detail, it's not clear for us the reasons or the

rationale of the CCWG, because the arguments proposed are not

certainly strong so as to amend the bylaws or to impose

conditions when there is a consensus and when there is no

consensus.

This is why we're supporting what has been said by our

colleagues who have previously stated their opinion against

stress test 18.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Looking at the clock and I know that there's more requests for

the floor, let me make a proposal to you.

We have heard a number of opinions, and it's actually -- I

welcome those who speak who have not spoken that often, so

this adds to the diversity of views. Given that we have a next

opportunity to discuss this I think on Tuesday, we could think

about asking or creating a facilitation team that would use the


of 137

time between now and our next meeting to continue to discuss

this informally, because we will not have the time to -- we can

give five or ten minutes more but that wouldn't change much

because we will have more people wishing to have the floor

today.

And given the fact that our colleague Anders Hektor from

Sweden has been active quite some time on the mailing list,

trying to look for ways to bring us together on this, my proposal

would be if he would accept and if you accept that we would

create a subteam, a subgroup that would use the time between

now and the next meeting informally to try and help us advance

on this issue. So your views on this, please.

Argentina.

ARGENTINA: Sorry, Mr. Chair, we don't accept that. We will not accept the

change in the bylaw. So -- And changing the rules of the GAC

without deliberation, without going to our countries, without

time. Why we should change the rules of the GAC because

someone else proposed something that we don't accept?

So honestly, I don't think it's a fair proposition. We will not

accept the change in the bylaws. So we won't find a way to

change our own rules.


of 137

Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Argentina.

Well, I think we should do everything we can and use all the

opportunities that we have to come to a consensus on this issue.

And I think at least try to engage and find ways to hopefully, if

we don't agree, then we don't agree, but it's not the end of our

timeline yet. So there is some time, and I think -- yeah. Consider

-- Please consider the idea to create a drafting team.

I have seen the U.K. and Spain and Iran.

UNITED KINGDOM: Yes, thank you, Chair. Very briefly, support your proposal and

agree with your steer on our objective here, which is to engage

constructively and collaboratively with the community on the

CCWG proposal in this particular element of that proposal.

So support -- support it. It's very much in the spirit of the

multistakeholder approach to transition.

Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, U.K.


of 137

Spain.

SPAIN: I'm going to speak in Spanish.

Unfortunately, I cannot second your proposal. I have no

problem working with Anders or with any other GAC

representative, but not on the basis of the proposal made by

Sweden.

This is just a makeup change. If we change the bylaws, if we

amend the bylaws, or we amend the operating principle, but it's

not a change or an amendment that we decided on our own

after a thoughtful discussion after analyzing why principle 53

calls for a simple majority. I don't know why, but there has been

some reason for that, some rationale, and it is very difficult for

us to make any change to the operating principle. So why all of

a sudden we have to run for a change and an amendment to the

operating principles, particularly regarding that point.

So I really do not know the reasons. I may think of some, but I

don't know why we have to surrender ourselves to this issue.

So I think it's very difficult to reach any type of agreement.

If somebody can make a proposal that might leave the GAC

autonomy alive so the GAC may make its own decision and this


of 137

proposal is accepted by the CCWG, it's okay. But right now, I

think we are in no condition of accepting this amendment.


Iran.

IRAN: Thank you, Chairman. I hope that the intervention of Olga and

Gema would not be interpreted as they are against the

leadership of our friend from Sweden. He was among the

person who very valuably and very constructively analyzed the

situation in a thorough manner saying what are the values, what

are the harms.

At the end, he said that if the values is dominating, we take it. If

the harm is dominating, we don't take it. So he has totally

neutral positions.

So should not be interpreted that they are against. This issue is

that whether we should take it now. Let us the proposal of Olga

and Gema comes from the group, any group. Let's you decide

tomorrow to have that group but not now. People think a little

bit, because you just propose it without maybe (indiscernible)

consulted people. Perhaps should have consulted these two


of 137

others. But I think you raise it tomorrow morning again, and I

think any conclusion should come from the group, whether is

headed by Olga or by Gema or by our colleagues from Sweden,

Anders, which is very, very constructive and very open-minded

person as far as I know.

So let us not decide on that, that we totally abandon that. There

is something on the table, and there is a push for that. There is a

push not to do it.

Let us see to what extent we could have. So I don't exclude the

situation right now. It would be difficult. Otherwise -- So sleep

on that tonight, and consult your wives.

[ Laughter ]

Or your commanders, and then come back. Or maybe husband.

Husband never have the commanders. Come back, and then

tomorrow you raise it again. I think perhaps your proposal is

good to have something from the group, because it will be

difficult in such a big group to have a thing. It's very difficult, I

think.

Maybe the proposal will be not change it at all. Or maybe

another proposal that if we don't agree to not change it, we

don't change it. That is another proposal made by Brazil in a

very diplomatic manner.


of 137

So let us sleep on that, and tomorrow morning you raise it again,

consulting few people that agree with you. We usually agree

with the Chair.

Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Iran.

First of all, I think the idea was not, by proposing that Anders

from Sweden may do it, that his deliberations were the basis. So

it was basically trying to find somebody who was trying, as Iran

has said, trying to build bridges here. And thank you for your

proposal to sleep about this.

The only problem is we will not meet tomorrow morning, so we

would need to electronically agree on this, which is even more

difficult. You think it's easier. Okay.

[ Laughter ]

Okay. Well, but think about what Kavouss has said.

I have Sweden, Anders; Switzerland; New Zealand. But there

was somebody before but I can't read my own writing.

Okay. Let's take these for the time being and then let's see.

Sweden, Switzerland, and New Zealand.


of 137

Sweden, please.

SWEDEN: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for asking me to do that, to

facilitate something. And thank you, Kavouss, for supporting it.

And Olga, Gema, there are no hard feelings. I fully understand

your interventions and respect them. The idea, like Thomas

said, I would never -- I have certainly made a proposal, and in all

fairness I think that would be one of the proposals to be

discussed, but there are other proposals to be discussed as well.

Like Thomas said, not changing anything at all, and just to start

out by better understanding the reasons for stress test 18 I think

could be a good start.

So if the group would accept it, I can take it upon me to do this

in a small group.

Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Sweden.

Switzerland.

SWITZERLAND: Thank you, Chair. Not surprisingly, I agree with your proposal,

and I agree with that clarification that -- which Anders just took


of 137

upon himself that he would act as a completely neutral

facilitator with the aim of striving for a commonly agreed

understanding of the issues.

And whenever we -- we arrive at that common understanding,

hopefully we could draw conclusions from that.

So -- And this is a process, and I think it would be good to have

something so rational as Anders trying to put the facts and the

issues on a common paper instead of having now a hundred or

at least 10 or 12 different mini groups trying to come up with

solutions in an uncoordinated manner.

So perhaps at least this intent of trying to understand issues and

to sit together and to talk about that, it would be worthwhile,

the effort, from today to Tuesday.

Thank you.


India is next, and then New Zealand.

INDIA: Thank you, Chair.


of 137

If we can take a step back for a moment and keeping in mind

what Sweden just said about the -- examining the reason for

having stress test 18, I would like to add one other thought.

In light of the broader developments with respect to the

accountability proposal and the very real possibility that the

membership model is currently is in (indiscernible) in the CCWG

second draft may not finally be adopted, is there any change to

the relevance of stress test 18?

It would be good if the GAC members who have been

participating actively in the CCWG, particularly Kavouss, could

give us their perspective on this.

Thank you.


We have to end this discussion here. We can't enter into a --

continue the substantive debate. We have to agree on a way

forward. So I urge you to consider the proposal that I have

made, take -- using the time to -- and using Anders as a

facilitator.

So I have New Zealand next. Thank you.


of 137

NEW ZEALAND: Thank you, Chair.

We just wanted to say that we welcome the work that Anders

has begun from Sweden, and the proposal to form a small

group, and we appreciate Anders accepting helping us to

manage that.

We, as GAC, ask the community to respect our views when we

convey them. We feel that the community has expressed a view,

perhaps a concern to us through the stress test, so we think it's

worthwhile to try to see what we can do.

Thank you.


You had your 15 minutes more that you have been asking for.

It's 1745. This is not an open-ended session. We can work out

all Tuesday night on this. We have another item on the agenda

that some people are waiting for us that have come here for this.

Is there any -- So basically we have the choice to either try to use

the time until Tuesday with agreeing to disagree and that's it,

which I don't think is very constructive, or we give Anders a

chance and give us also a chance with Anders to come one step

forward, maybe informally, look at things, try to raise, in a sense.


of 137

I would urge you, is there an objection to try and use Anders in

the coming days until we meet next time and see where we are?

So, please, if there's an objection, please say it now. I hope

there won't be, but of course it's your decision.

Yes, France.

FRANCE: Unfortunately, Thomas, I think that you are not taking into

consideration Spain and Argentina's objections.

What I believe is that you need to put forward a different

methodology.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: What is ask that you propose I should put forward here?

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that I -- I was listening to the --

to the comments, and I was wondering, this process probably

will lead to an amendment also to the GAC operating principles.

It's linked to it. It's linked to it, so we have a working group on

that. I don't know, shouldn't we just, you know, leave this issue

and then, you know, it will come up in any case when we discuss

the GAC -- the operating principles. We have a working group for

that.


of 137

Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Let's not go into the substantive debate.

The question that I'm asking you is are you willing to use the

time for an informal work under the leadership of Anders or

somebody else or not.

Those who object to this proposal, what is the alternative

proposal that you recommend us to use the time until our next

meeting? I hope that was clear.

So, please, those who object to working informally, what is the

alternative to working informally? Thank you.

La France.

FRANCE: Let me answer to your question. The vice chair has just talked

on behalf of Namibia. GAC has very clear rules for working. It

has internal working methodologies. We are in favor of the

status quo. We want these rules to be observed.

For us the solution lies in following the habits, the customs that

we usually have in GAC. There is a working group that is being

formed, and the leadership of Namibia, the vice chair, suggested

this group works.


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: For the time being, the issue here at stake is not to amend the

operating principles. It's just to find a solution for the stress test

18 issue. At least that is my understanding. Please correct me if

I am wrong.

I'm trying to find one way to move forward with our work hoping

that we being reach an agreement or a compromise solution on

the subject of stress test 18.

So my proposal, my suggestion is that we should use the time

we have between now and the next meeting to work informally.

But if some of the members do not agree, please give me some

alternatives in order to find some other option.

Thank you.

SPAIN: Thomas, I don't know why we need to look for a compromise

solution that would mean accepting the stress test 18 if we are

not convinced of the need for such a test.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Don't preempt the outcome. We are trying to find a compromise

position in the GAC on the issue. We are not trying to find -- this

is -- without preempting the outcome. We don't say we will work


of 137

towards agreeing on what is there. That's not the point. Maybe,

then, I misplaced my proposal.

I'm trying to find a way that allows us to continue to work on a

consensus on what to do with stress test 18 in the GAC.

I hope that is clear.

Lebanon and then Iran and then European Commission.

LEBANON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have with a clear example here. We do

not have consensus in the room to discuss and to examine this

issue. So we are going to work on the basis of consensus, so

today we can say there is no consensus already.

So today, tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, we have so

much work to do. We have so many discussions to hold on very

important issues that we don't have time to add this simple

proposal. If there is no consensus so lets leave this out and let's

go on to something else because there is no consensus.

Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: To react, I think we all agree that our main working methods is

to achieve consensus in this forum. This is how -- what we have

been doing so far until late at night sometimes, most of the


of 137

times. With some very rare exceptions, we haven't been able to

achieve.

I think it would give a very bad signal to the outside world that

we say, "We haven't reached a consensus at Sunday at our

second day before 18 o'clock. Okay, that's it, we're done, there's

no consensus. I don't think we should do this.

I think we should not give up yet. We still have some time. I'm

trying to find ways to use the time most effectively, but I don't

think we should say, "Okay, we have no consensus on Sunday

evening. That's it. We will not continue to try and find

consensus on this issue," because this is an issue of importance,

and we should keep on trying, I think. At least I'm here to help

us keep on trying.

This is how I understand my role, and I'm hopeful to get support

from others in this role, because I can't do it alone. And that has

never been mid why. I'm in your hands, of course, but I am

convinced that we should -- we are not at the end of our time yet

to try and find a consensus on this issue.

Looking at the -- Yes, Iran.

IRAN: Thank you, Thomas.


of 137

Having worked 42 years in international organizations, we are

fortunately sitting in the GAC, which is governments. It is not a

tradition that we categorically oppose to any group to discuss

whether or not we take positions. We should leave the room

that whatever people wants would be outcome of that group.

So I request the distinguished colleagues from Spain and

Argentina and France, all of them are my colleagues, that let us

what you saying would be output of the group. If in the group

the majority are in favor of no change, that would be output of

the group.

What I said tomorrow, I thought that you want to finish the

discussion, but now continued half an hour. So I ask the people

to kindly support the chair and would not put the precedence

that in GAC categorically the people opposed to any discussions.

We always should discuss the issue. And I'm sure that the

discussion will be that if the majority says no change, that will be

no change. But let us put democratically and let us put as a

principle of all government in all meeting, internationally, and

so on, so forth.

So I support you, and I request, perhaps, colleagues, they

reconsider, allow you to have this group and work, and perhaps

we would have outcome of that group in the way that the

majority are in favor, whether to change it or not change it.


of 137

Thank you.


Argentina.

ARGENTINA: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Iran, for your constructive

comments.

Chair, in any way I want to put you in a position of not doing

your job in the proper way. What I meant when I said no is we

oppose to any change in the GAC operating rules. We don't see

it a necessity -- we don't see the necessity of changing the

bylaws. That won't change.

We see that we should remain as we are now.

Argentina will not oppose to any working group or drafting

team. We have done. We have led different drafting teams.

What I would like really to stress is that whenever some text is

done in this accountability process, then it suddenly becomes

written in stone, like the stress test 18. All the comments that

we have done towards changing our not doing it has been

ignored and not reflected in the two times that we did comment,

also with other mentions to the private sector and all that.


of 137

So if it's a suggested text that we may consider among all of us,

and then we can agree or not, that is fine. If that text will be

taken as not changeable in the future, we will not agree with

that. That happened several times in this process, and we really

think we -- be why they request our comments if then they will

not be considered.

So if that is the case, we are okay -- we are okay with the working

group. But you know our position.

Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Argentina.

So let me make the proposal that maybe we do it on a voluntary

basis. I cannot impede people from engaging informally. So

whoever is interested in engaging with Anders and with

everybody else, I think feel free to do so. You're invited. And

then we see where we are at our next meeting.

So I think we have to stop here. Thank you very much for

enduring.

We have another item that we need to deal with today because

accountability is not the only thing that we have to go through.

It is the agenda item 15 on the use of two-letter country codes


of 137

and country, territory names at the second level. We have done

already some work on this, and I see that Karin from ICANN

support staff is coming to us. So she has been willing to give us

an update or give us a wrap-up on where we are on this and why

this is on the agenda again.

So thank you, Karin, for introducing this agenda item.

Thank you.

KARINE PERSET: Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. You should have received a

preparatory memo on -- for this meeting on the topic of two-

character codes at the second level. In particular, country

codes.

So I'll introduce it really quickly.

Julia, could you put the slide deck up, please.

So I just wanted quickly to again distinguish the issue we

discussed this morning which was about the future which was

about the top level from this current issue which is about the

second level and which is about a current implementation issue.

So could you go to slide four, please.


of 137

So as you might recall, in late 2014 following Board/GAC

correspondence and a Board resolution, ICANN launched a

process to authorize the release of two-character ASCII labels,

two-character labels corresponding to the ISO 31 -- well, country

codes, basically, for new gTLD registries under certain

conditions.

The Registry Agreement planned for this, and the ICANN Board

provided some direction. So ICANN then refined the progresses

in February of 2015 in response to GAC advice from January, I

believe, and another Board resolution, and agreed that GAC

advice would be fully considered at that point.

So GAC members then commented on the release of the

corresponding country codes for their countries, and there were

-- between February and October, there were 20 -- some 26 -- 24

commenters, GAC commenters. Some commented on all top-

level domains and some commented on just a subset or

targeted -- targeted top-level domains.

So why are we discussing this today?

Next slide, please.

So on the 6th of October, last week, I guess, ICANN launched a

new process to review and to then address the government

comments received on the release of these two-letter top-level


of 137

domains -- sorry, second-level domains. Getting confused. And

the countries that a had previously commented are being asked

to clarify their comments and to do so within 60 days; i.e., by

December 5th, 2015. And after that, registries will be asked to

proposal a plan to mitigate the concerns raised by governments

and avoid confusion with those country codes.

The third step following that will be for ICANN to use the

comments from governments and registries in their mitigation

plans to draft criteria for approval of registry mitigation plans to

release these labels, possibly, in some cases, and then draft final

criteria for approval.

So now I'll -- next slide, please.

Now I'd like to give a quick overview of some of the questions

and the concerns that GAC members have raised in September

and October over this new process, this additional step to the

process to launch a discussion.

So first, some GAC members asked whether governments would

have any veto regarding the use of their corresponding two-

letter codes at the second level by new gTLDs. For example, if

they disagreed with the registry mitigation plan or with ICANN's

assessment of the plan. Another area of concern is -- significant

concern, actually, is whether this type of process could be used


of 137

in the future treatment of full country names at the second level,

which is possibly even more sensitive.

A third question raised is whether reasons for government

concerned beyond confusion with the corresponding ccTLD are

valid, are considered to be valid or should be considered to be

valid. And some GAC members have raised issues such as

customer -- consumer protection or institutional reputation,

that type of policy issues. And another -- another issue raised by

many GAC members is that of category 1, TLDs, where they carry

-- they might carry implicit trust marks and, therefore, user --

therefore, they might induce confusion, although it's not directly

ccTLD confusion. It is implicitly ccTLD confusion.

So there's uncertainty about what exactly qualifies as a reason,

rationale for commenting or objecting or asking for approval.

So that's requests being made to ICANN, I guess.

Another question concerns what -- what types of measures can

registries take to mitigate the confusion concerns.

Sorry. Next slide, please, Julia, please.

And for those -- for those measures, what role would

governments have? For example, many governments or several

governments, at least, have asked to be consulted before

registrations are processed, and they wonder what role they


of 137

would play, would that constitute a mitigation measure to have

the government approve of the registrant, if you see what I

mean.

Also, there -- a question is whether there are examples of

possible registry mitigation measures that could be given to the

GAC. What is being envisaged here.

And finally, some GAC members have tested the form and

commented that its user friendliness could be improved, and

that, also, it currently only covers the existing top-level domains

that have been delegated. That's some 700 TLDs. However,

there are some 600 more coming which are already known. So

for countries that have resource capacity issues, it might be

easier to include the whole list of TLDs from the current round.

So I'm done with the introduction. Those were the -- Those were

the six main questions that have been raised by the GAC. And

I'm happy to respond to any questions.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Karin, for putting this together and for recalling the

questions that have come from GAC members to this process as

it has been set out by ICANN staff.

So I would like to give the floor to GAC members to come in and

comment on this.


of 137

I have Mr. Chen Cheng-Shu and then Spain and European

Commission.

CHEN CHENG-SHU: Thank you, Chair. On this issue, I would like to share with

colleague my humble opinion.

We all know that every country has its own culture, which is

different from country to country in many aspect, among them,

the value of (indiscernible) and dress co (phonetic) are often

taken as prominent facets. Today in civilization global society

where we live, it is well-known to respect the cultural diversity.

Likewise, the very individual country, the (indiscernible) or

sensitivity, whether it takes it or specific of having the notion

that using ccTLD as SLD would cause the concern of confusion

with a ccTLD is sure to be diverse as well.

I think this is just a part of a reflection of a country's culture.

As such, should, then, such practice deserve to be respect to the

greatest extent possible?

So I suggest ICANN had better taken this consideration into

account in dealing with this issue.

Thank you.


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Spain.

SPAIN: Muchas gracias. Spain speaking. Thank you very much. I have a

brief comment. The letter sent by the GAC chair to Akram

Atallah in July 16, in this respect, asked for information about

the procedures who wished to consider the objections of

governments. And this information should be sent to the GAC

before the procedure started. This has not been respected.

My second comment is that this is a clear example that the

application of GAC recommendations accepted by the board in

the meeting held in Singapore this year, did not follow the goal

of the recommendation and the Board resolution.

So I think that the GAC, if agrees to that, should warn the Board

so as to put this process on track and then follow GAC advice

and the Board's resolution.

I am saying this because we in Singapore said by consensus,

unanimously, I should say, that the views of the government

should be fully considered. It was not specified what type of

objections we were talking about, any type of objection.

But now it seems that only the objections regarding confusion

will be taken into account when we talk about country codes.

So we are limiting the scope of the GAC recommendation that


of 137

has already been accepted by the board. All other objections

will be sent to some resource mechanism. And I think that the

government should be -- should then be liable to enforce the

same or not. We don't know exactly what confusion is, whether

it is an ample concept or (indiscernible) concept.

Then after GAC made its recommendations, we were hoping that

this procedure to analyze the study -- the objections by the

government, this is not a procedure that will consider the

objections of the government. But it is said that, if you have

already made a comment, you had to make the comment again.

You have to refine those comments. You have to put some

clarity of them or align them within 60 days up to December 5.

What will happen if we don't make that deadline? Will these

objections lay in a stack? In a drawer? What is ICANN saying --

or is it ICANN saying that it will consider the objections? No. You

have to submit objections again. And you have to submit the

objections I like to consider that are the confusion objections.

So those related to confusion.

So we are driven to a complex process with two public comment

periods, I think, for comments to be received from the

community as a whole. And I think that the objections

submitted by the government would be certainly set aside. I

don't know what would be the final outcome. We were hoping


of 137

we were respected or the aspiration of many governments when

we made those objections was to be asked. We wanted to be

asked before a domain name is assigned. We wanted to know

the use for that domain name. We didn't want to reserve it for

ourselves. But we were willing to know what will be the use so

as not to be harmful to damage users or to generate confusion in

the end users.

We don't know whether ICANN will be considering knocking the

door of the governments or the registries. If an applicant comes

asking for those domains, what will happen? So the procedure

that has been implemented, the second alternative, establishing

spec 5 of the agreement with the registries. That specification

already considered that there would be confusion. So they

didn't need it. They didn't need the comments of the

government for that respect. So I don't know why we had to

submit the comments. If the Board had accepted the comments

and the recommendations and at the end of the day they will

follow procedure number 2 of specification 5.

Now they change the procedure to submit new comments for

the new application, as Karine has said. And I've already tested

it myself. The form certainly cannot be filled in. So I ask for the

clock to be stopped so that the 60-day period will start when the

form is reviewed and you can fill it in. Thank you very much.


of 137

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Spain. European Commission.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Yes, thank you very much.

Well, I appreciate very much the intervention from Spain.

Because we have very, very similar, if not the same, questions

and concerns. In the particular case of the European Union as

well, which manages -- well, not specifically. We have someone

else do it for us. The dot EU case.

One can argue is this a question of confusability? Or is it a

question of consumer protection, trust, and confidence in the

Internet, et cetera. For me that is a fundamental element and

the reason we review, not object, but we review all the cases

that come to us asking for request of EU at the second level is to

make sure there is no possible confusability about, for example,

protection under EU law. Let me just take an example of data

protection.

In Europe, we have rather strict data protection, personal data

protection rules.

So, if someone were to use EU at the second level in the context

of a particular gTLD, it might lead to confusability that,


of 137

therefore, EU data protection rules apply. Is this confusability?

Is this consumer protection? I don't know. I don't mind how you

call it. But, in some very limited cases, we have said, no, this will

lead to confusion for the consumer. It doesn't encourage

respect and trust in the online environment. So, for all those

reasons, I appreciate and underscore and underline and endorse

what has already been said by Spain. And also I have a question.

I had thought this had been addressed already by the

questionnaire we were required to fill out identifying all the lists

of second level names where we were supposed to be reviewed,

et cetera, et cetera. But this seems now to have been --

disappeared. Spain mentioned this already. But I think we

really need to clarify what is going on. Thanks.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Olof, would you want to answer that question?

Thank you.

OLOF NORDLING: With pleasure, thank you. Olof Nordling, for the record. ICANN

staff.

And what we came up with -- and this was with hindsight about

the first step in the two-character process. Because then it was

time also to review what happens with the country names. And


of 137

the matrix that we put up and asked you to fill out for the

country names, whether those would be free to use or rather not

will require notification in each individual case. That was a

separate exercise. And we hope we made it clear enough that it

was a separate exercise specifically for the country names.

Because the train had already started for two-character names.

So yeah.

Well, it's not the same. But it's closely related and easily

confusable. Sorry for using that word again. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Other comments or questions? Iran.

IRAN: Is there any link between this two-character second level and

what we discussed this morning about changing the two

characters to three characters for ccTLD? Is there any attempt

at, first of all, we change everything to three characters and we

release all of the two character country codes and we give it to

some -- is there any link or not? Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you for answering this question. I think it's quite late for

us all.


of 137

No, the discussion this morning was for three-character codes

on the top level. Now we are discussing the issue, recurrently,

the issue about two-character codes on the second level. But

there may be a link -- or fears have risen, as you've seen on the

slides presented by Karine, on the issues that we've given advice

and the advice has been accepted; but the implementation of

the advice by ICANN, there's a feeling that this is not in line with

our advice that has been accepted. So this is -- and Spain has

quite in detail laid out what seems to be the problem here.

So it's an issue of implementation of an advice that is basically

accepted. And the last -- the key thing is the decision of the

board at the end of the Singapore meeting in February after our

invention that then led to the promulgation of a 30-day period to

a 60-day period and so on and so forth.

And then -- so there are two elements. One element is that, in

the letter of July, as has been noted by Spain, I asked ICANN to

keep us informed about the implementation procedure, the way

they planned to implement this, to which they said yes.

And now it's been implemented without -- in a way that people

feel it's not in line with the advice and without consulting the

GAC before launching that mechanism. But it has got nothing to

do with the three-character discussion on top level. I hope I

managed to make this clear. Iran.


of 137

IRAN: No, no, Chair. I don't think that. I think it is a parallel

operations. I fully agree with what you said and fully agree with

what you dispensed. And also I add something else. In some

country there are manpower problems to check all these issues

and reply on time.

But I think a danger that in future you'll start to move the top-

level domain from two characters to three characters. And then

you release all the two characters at the top-level domain and

give it to the second level.

So that is the issue that I see that some people may not see.

That's why I ask is there any relation? And I think there is some

attempt to do that, these two parallel operations. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Namibia and Indonesia.

NAMIBIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would want to support what Spain

said, my colleague.

I think the issue of capacity in some countries and the issue of

missing the train -- Olof said the train has already moved -- is a

reality. I have been, I think on the record, in terms of our


of 137

objections that they are a number of processes that sometimes

we don't understand and is just going under the radar. One is

that, when I look at the forms when the applications were made

for this release of these names, it was just a form that says -- that

gives all applicants just an option of ticking all, even though they

are not interested in some of the domain names. So they just

tick all. It makes it extremely easy.

Then now we are at the point where we have made the

objections. We are not told that no -- there's now a slight

change in that. It's only objections concerning confusability and

so on.

And then comes the point where the -- I think the process, as we

understood it, was that these registries that applied, applicants

must now engage individual governments, I think. Those who

made objections you engage. And then you enter into

consultation to understand -- to also explain -- as a government,

explain our views why and our concerns.

It's, again, made very easy now that ICANN is stepping into that -

- as an institution, stepping into that situation or in that position

as the applicants.

Now, on behalf of them saying okay. We are going to interfere or

to -- we're going to intervene and say only confusability will now

be considered. So the applicants are now behind ICANN as an


of 137

institution. And GAC -- or the countries must now explain to

ICANN instead of explaining to the applicants, the individual

applicants that applied, say this is our views. Now we have to

explain to ICANN this is how we -- although we already made an

objection.

This becomes a bit tiring and a bit long for some of the

governments like Namibia that we are now not having the

opportunity to explain to the applicants why Namibia says no.

And it is just an issue of a general objection or an objection that

now needs to be turned down to confusability, although we

have other issues like trust, and so on that we raised. So it just

became a little bit complicated for us now.

And the whole thing about the December 5th objection, it's the

first time that I actually hear about it, I think. I'm sorry. Maybe I

didn't follow. It's the first time I heard about December 5. And

this is now for governments or for those who objected to now

explain.

And I was actually thinking that if it was the applicant, they

would have come individually to each government that

objected. And it would have been a one-to-one discussion. Now

it's a posted discussion in the Internet. And you have to respond

by the 5th of December, which again add to the issue of people


of 137

may slip through the cracks because of countries. Thank you,

Mr. Chair.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Namibia. We should sooner or later come to a close

as we run already significantly over time. Indonesia, please.

And then I propose that we get to grips on how to deal with this.

Thank you.

INDONESIA: Yes, Thomas, just a short brief comment.

It is mentioned there that someone said two-character country

codes are unable to monitor and so and so on and so on. I agree

with that, because it is difficult to monitor more than 150

countries around the world. And so I think that, if there is no

problem on the use of the second level domain of the country,

let it be the status quo.

I mean, in Indonesia we already use dot CO.ID for thousands of

companies. We use AC.ID for -- I don't know -- hundred of

universities and so on and so on. And Colombia and what is dot

AC? Another island or something like that. It's okay for that why

we should put a problem here. It's like opening a Pandora box,

you know. And you have more and more and more problems

every day. If it is okay, it's okay. Just don't touch it. And we


of 137

better concentrate on things that we have problems. .AFRICA is

a big problem.

.SPA. My friend from Trousseau mentioned it is still a problem.

Okay. How about .WINE? I don't know. I forget all those names.

.WINE, I don't know whether it is still a problem or not. We can

ask France about that.

.WINE. SPA, and .AFRICA big problem for us. Let's not open

Pandora's box and just find a solution for a few cases and

problems that are in front of us. Thank you.

CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Indonesia. Just to clarify, this is not about existing

ccTLDs. This is about the 2-letter code use, two-character code

use in new gTLDs. As I said, we have a series of communications.

And there are some expectations in the GAC regarding how this

should be handled or should have been handled.

I think we have to stop here. The question is what do we do with

this now? Do we task somebody to draft a draft text for the

communique on this and see whether we can agree to this by

Wednesday? That would be one proposal. I see people nodding.

Who should that be? Should we ask Spain, together with the

help of the secretariat, to come up with something? Then we


of 137

have a look at it and see whether that is deemed to be

appropriate.

All right. If there's no more requests for the floor, I would then

like to thank, first of all, the interpreters for sacrificing half an

hour additionally on Sunday evening. And thanks to all of you

for staying with me. And I invite you to use the time available to

informally and formally and wherever and whenever work on

whatever you think is necessary and important.

Thank you, and see you in this room on Tuesday again.

Thank you.

[END OF TRANSCRIPTION]

dublin – gac sunday afternoon sessions...dublin – gac sunday afternoon sessions enpage 3 of 137...

Documents